- From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:14:20 -0400
- To: Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com>
- Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Tom, (+www-archive -public-tracking) This is off-topic of ISSUE-81 Le 27 oct. 2011 à 19:51, Tom Lowenthal a écrit : > Karl, I quite disagree. If we can imagine good applications in the > future, we should try to enable them rather than prohibiting them, even > if they don't actually happen. Generativity is an important goal. We can imagine a lot of things. Really. And it is interesting to explore and test things for the future of technologies and interactions. There is even an avenue for this at W3C which is called Member Submission. [1] The Community Group has also been created for enabling exploration of techno- logies with a low cost in participation [2]. For the purpose of W3C Specifications, the specifications are written to be implemented in an interoperable way. It's a delicate, ingrate exercise. Whatever good the idea is, if it's not implemented it doesn't really exist. The CR phase of W3C is asking for a double implementation of each features. If a Working Group can't demonstrate that there is a double interoperable implementation, the feature is likely to be dropped. So the goal of a WG is to come with good ideas (indeed) but ideas that will be implemented by the end of the specification. It is perfectly fine to have more ideas for future versions and to document them. This can happen on a wiki, a community group, etc. But for the purpose of having something realistically used, we also have to reach a consensus on what participants are willing to implement. Hope it makes it clearer. [1]: http://www.w3.org/Submission/ [2]: http://www.w3.org/community/ -- Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/ Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software
Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 12:14:56 UTC