- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:40:10 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
* Ian Hickson wrote: >On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, David Woolley wrote: >> I might think that a lot of this sort of animation is bad for users, >> but that is not the perception of the people with the money to pay >> for sites, so any W3C specification that doesn't acknowledge it will >> be treated as an irrelevance. > >Any W3C specification that "acknowledges" a feature by describing it in a >way completely different to the real world will also be treated as an >irrelevance. I don't see why you would prefer the spec to be wrong >(effectively, to lie) than to simply not mention the features which are >not interoperably implemented. That's not the point. The W3C Recommendation Track process is designed to standardize Web technology by maximizing consensus about the content of a technical report. If a feature does not get implemented at all, spite the expectation of the Working Group, the feature should be reconsidered and probably be revised rather than be dropped blindly. If a feature is not interoperably implemented, the Working Group should do further work to gain interoperability.
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2004 09:42:00 UTC