W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2013

RE: Highlighting issue of XML support in DOM 4 (was: TAG Decision .....develop a polyglot guide)

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 07:45:09 -0800
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
CC: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Daniel Glazman <daniel@glazman.org>, Norm Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E3FF99D32@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
I'm happy to reconsider my conclusion that the features are widely used. 

 I have scant evidence: blog posts and tweets from people who claim to represent software they claim has many users, books published which mention polyglot, etc., the investment of time and energy by the editor of the polyglot spec. These are at least evidence of _some_ users, but I'm willing to consider a definition of "widely used" which discounts all of those as insignificant.

What definition of "widely used" would you like me to use?  Would you use the same definition for all HTML features, and support removing features that aren't widely used by that definition?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: annevankesteren@gmail.com [mailto:annevankesteren@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:43 PM
> To: Larry Masinter
> Cc: Noah Mendelsohn; www-tag@w3.org; Daniel Glazman; Norm Walsh
> Subject: Re: Highlighting issue of XML support in DOM 4 (was: TAG Decision
> .....develop a polyglot guide)
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> > Removing features that are widely deployed seems like contradictory
> behavior.
> Please consider that your conclusion that they are widely used might
> be incorrect.
> --
> http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 15:45:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:51 UTC