Re: Request for the WHATWG draft to converge with the W3C draft

>> 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