Please stop on your side giving lessons again and stop trying to
isolate/elude my initial answer, and refrain people on this list not to
be insulting first.
This one was not insulting, just a general consideration and you should
consider it.
But indeed, back to the "in-scope" technical discussion
On 2015-10-18 19:09, Aymeric Vitte wrote:
Le 17/10/2015 16:19, Anders Rundgren a écrit :
Unless you work for a browser vendor or is generally "recognized" for some
specialty, nothing seems to be of enough interest to even get briefly
evaluated.
Right, that's a deficiency of the W3C/WHATWG/w
Anders Rundgren wrote:
> Unless you work for a browser vendor or is generally "recognized" for
> some
> specialty, nothing seems to be of enough interest to even get briefly
> evaluated.
Maybe the right thing is assemble "user representative" groups and be
enough heard on such places as this maili
Le 17/10/2015 16:19, Anders Rundgren a écrit :
> Unless you work for a browser vendor or is generally "recognized" for some
> specialty, nothing seems to be of enough interest to even get briefly
> evaluated.
>
Right, that's a deficiency of the W3C/WHATWG/whatever specs process,
where people we
Daniel,
as far as I can read the post, copy-and-paste-interoperability would be
a "sub-task" of this.
It's not a very small task though.
In my world, E.g., there was a person who inventend a "math" protocol
handler. For him it meant that formulæ be read out loud (because his
mission is making the
Offlist.
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 19:36:54 +0200, Anders Rundgren
wrote:
On 2015-10-17 17:58, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote:
Regarding App-to-App interaction I'm personally mainly into the
Web-to-Native variant.
As I already pointed out to Daniel, this stuff is not in the current
scope
of the