- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 06:09:22 +0200
- To: www-archive@w3.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
>> My subsequent request is very specific: either apply Lachlan's change in >> a way that does not cause the documents to diverge > > If you want a change to the WHATWG version of the specifications, please > provide rationale that argues for that change. Regarding technical rationale, then Lachlan's example does not validate as HTML5. Per my understanding, that is a bug in HTML5: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9657 I said this while ISSUE-107 was handled: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0048 Does your acceptance of Lachlan's example in both the WHATWG spec and the HTMLWWG spec indicate that you also agree with bug 9657? > So far the only rationale > you have provided convincingly argues for keeping both examples. Unless > informed otherwise by the WHATWG charter members, I will assume that in > the absence of a good technical reason, the example should remain in the > WHATWG specifications. I don't understand how the two examples differ - except that they show different plug-ins and different style of fallback text (realistic versus unrealistic - friendly versus hostile). The two examples share an important technical thing: in each case, the plug-in is used to play a plug-in specific resource. But very often, a plug-in - including proprietary plug-ins - can be used to play non-proprietary media format which the browser do not support natively. For example, there hare plug-ins for SVG and MathML - even Flash can be used to play SVG. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 27 June 2010 04:10:30 UTC