- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 08:54:45 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Florian Rivoal" <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 00:48:33 +0200, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: >> >> On 15 Apr 2015, at 18:42, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> >> wrote: >>> The downside is that E is not what either of the existing >>> implementations >>> I am aware of do. I don't have easy access to the corpus of existing >>> content to assess if we'd have a compat problem to do that. These >>> properties >>> are heavily used on TV sites, so there is legacy content to consider. >> >> Hm, true. We'd have to check. > > Anybody has easy access to a big corpus of TV oriented web page? Someone > at > Opera (CCing Simon)? Nope, don't think so. I don't see what is particularly bad about adopting (a) or (b). What is the benefit of doing (e)? Is it worth the risk of breaking TV apps for end users if this ships to TVs via auto-update (assuming vendors don't notice any problems before actually shipping)? -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2015 06:55:17 UTC