[whatwg] Suggested changes to Web Forms 2.0, 2004-07-01 working

[Jim Ley]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 22:42:43 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:54:02 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> >> It is the concensus of the members.
> >
> > How was this consensus reached?
> 
> Over a beer in a San Jose bar, if I'm not mistaken.

I thought the process was open, and the only communication method was
the mailing list - but we've gone over this...

> > As I've said before, I do not feel HTC's are an appropriate mechanism
> > for providing this sort of support in a release environment.
> 
> Nobody is forcing you to use HTCs. :-) Just don't stop anyone else from
> using them.

I'm not, you're rejecting the built in extension mechanisms of HTML,
because of dubious requirements about HTC's.  This is my problem. 
There's still a reason to use HTC's with the object solution, it's
just not obvious with OBJECT in your examples.

> > So it's the expectation of the WHAT-WG that users of Mozilla, Safari and
> > Opera will get a severely degraded experience unless they upgrade their
> > browsers?  Well as I said before - it's one way to drive Opera sales.
> 
> Oddly enough, Opera, Mozilla and Apple do not think it is unusual for them
> to add new features to their products and hope that existing users of
> previous version of those products upgrade to the new releases. In fact,
> when we researched this, we discovered it was standard industry practice,
> and a good way to stay in business.

So it is to drive Opera sales?    

> We wouldn't really have to worry about back-compat at all if it wasn't for
> Microsoft stalling IE development, 

I got upgrades to IE just last week, I saw lots of jobs on the IE team
advertised last week - in fact they're recruiting more than Opera -
doesn't look stalled to me - so what's the point of worrying about it
now?

Jim.