- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:42:40 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Giovanni Campagna wrote: > > Actually, only http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/ can be considered HTML5 (a > vocabulary and associated api for (X)HTML): the other are not dependent > or related to HTML (the markup language), although implemented together, > and are in scope of Web Applications WG (and are developed there). Well by that definition, any spec is "monolithic", then, so Mark's slur is meaningless. > Even the fact that you consider WebWorkers or XMLHttpRequest (or even > the WebSocket protocol) as part of HTML5 is against modularity and > extensibility: they're independent technologies with different use > cases, conformance requirements and designs. Why shouldn't I be able to > use WebSocket from a C++ application? Or use XMLHttpRequest with > image/png (XHR2 of course)? Or implemnt Selectors API in a Gnome's > LibXML2? You can use HTML5 from a C++ application (most Web browsers do!). And the HTML5 APIs and features (e.g. <iframe>) can be used with image/png. And you could implement HTML5's getElementsByClassName() feature in libxml2 just like the Selectors API. The specs I mentioned are all specs that have been extracted from HTML5's core document, illustrating that the HTML5 effort has been very willing to split things up and spread the language to multiple working groups, organisations, and editors, as appropriate. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2009 20:43:15 UTC