michael.brockington
Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:24:37 -0700
> It really feels as if we need a standards process that is much more agile and > iterative. Something that is much less monolithic. If WHATWG and the W3C > are unable to do this, the browser vendors -- and the market -- will. > > -jeff I'm not sure if I said it here before or not, but I really feel that we need to have an annual, or possibly two-yearly (I can never remember if that is semi-annual or bi-annual) version of the spec, and most importantly, it should be labelled as such. Then, the vendors would have to say that their browser supports HTMLv1971 (that would be IE) or perhaps HTMLv2008 for (insert your particular favourite.) This would make it far easier for good browsers to sell themselves to the ignorant public. Similarly, the W3C would be prevented from making lots of dramatic, controversial changes in one go, thereby hopefully avoiding the debacle we had with the introduction of XHTML without deprecating HTML. Regards, Mike Mike Brockington Web Development Specialist www.calcResult.com www.stephanieBlakey.me.uk www.edinburgh.gov.uk This message does not reflect the opinions of any entity other than the author alone. ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************