On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:12 PM, David Gerard<[email protected]> wrote: > They are happy to foul up the entire standard. I feel there is little > to no benefit to us in trying to imply that the situation is > otherwise.
First of all, Apple is not "fouling up the entire standard". They employ one of its two co-editors, their developers contribute to it very actively, and they ship an implementation that's as advanced as anybody's. This is *one* specific feature that they've said they won't implement at the present time (but they may reconsider at any time). Mozilla has vetoed features as well, as Ian Hickson has pointed out. Mozilla refused to implement SQL, so that was removed from the standard, just as mention of Theora was. Second of all, I don't have a serious problem with Wikimedia only advocating the use of open-source software, say. But if it does, it *must* be phrased in a way that makes it clear that it's an advertisement of a product we want the user to use, not a neutral assessment of what the best technology is for viewing the page. Anything else is deliberately misleading, and that's unacceptable. On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Gregory Maxwell<[email protected]> wrote: > Regardless, I think we've finished the technical part of this > decision— the details are a matter of organization concern now, not > technology. Yep, definitely. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
