On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, João Eiras wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:01:31 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> > >
> > > I frequently see the comment on this list and in other forums that
> > > something is "too late" for HTML5, and therefore discussion should
>
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:35 PM, João Eiras wrote:
> From an implementor's point of view it is much harder to implement and keep
> up with a mutating specification. During implementation a stable spec is
> preferred.
>
As a browser implementer, I have certainly not found the dynamic nature of
t
[jo...@opera.com]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 9:35 PM
To: WHATWG
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Removing versioning from HTML
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:01:31 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Aaron Boodman wrote:
>>
>> I frequently see the comment on this list and in ot
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:01:31 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Aaron Boodman wrote:
I frequently see the comment on this list and in other forums that
something is "too late" for HTML5, and therefore discussion should be
deferred.
I would like to propose that we get rid of the co
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Aaron Boodman wrote:
>
> I frequently see the comment on this list and in other forums that
> something is "too late" for HTML5, and therefore discussion should be
> deferred.
>
> I would like to propose that we get rid of the concepts of "versions"
> altogether from HTML.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> A feature that is not widely supported is a feature we authors can't
>> depend on. If we're lucky, we can put in some extra effort to work
>> around the lack and still deliver a decent
On 8/9/09 7:10 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
[If this has been discussed before, feel free to just point me there]
I frequently see the comment on this list and in other forums that
something is "too late" for HTML5, and therefore discussion should be
deferred.
I would like to propose that we get ri
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Adam Shannon
> wrote:
> > If we never cut things off then the spec will really never be finished
> > before 2020.
>
> Why does this matter? At the end of the day isn't the goal to have the
> largest number of interoperable features? Consider one reality where
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> A feature that is not widely supported is a feature we authors can't
> depend on. If we're lucky, we can put in some extra effort to work
> around the lack and still deliver a decent experience. If we're not,
> we simply don't do what we wan
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> [If this has been discussed before, feel free to just point me there]
>
> I frequently see the comment on this list and in other forums that
> something is "too late" for HTML5, and therefore discussion should be
> deferred.
>
> I would like
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> [If this has been discussed before, feel free to just point me there]
>
> I frequently see the comment on this list and in other forums that
> something is "too late" for HTML5, and therefore discussion should be
> deferred.
>
> I would like t
[If this has been discussed before, feel free to just point me there]
I frequently see the comment on this list and in other forums that
something is "too late" for HTML5, and therefore discussion should be
deferred.
I would like to propose that we get rid of the concepts of "versions"
altogether
12 matches
Mail list logo
