[whatwg] some issues
jim.ley at gmail.com
Wed Jul 7 08:23:50 PDT 2004
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:18:20 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> As we wrote in our position paper:
> | Should there be a set of predefined compound document profiles (e.g.
> | XHTML Basic + SMIL Basic + SVG Tiny)?
> | No. Such documents are rarely useful as UAs do not generally limit
> | themselves to particular profiles. If a specification is so large that
> | it requires profiling and/or cannot be implemented on small devices,
> | then it is a failing of the specification that should be solved by
> | editing the complete spec, possibly simplifying or obsoleting some
> | parts.
> -- http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webapps-cdf-ws/papers/opera.html
So now you're talking about we in the sense of Opera, not the WHATWG?
it would help if you could keep your language on the list as you as an
individual, remember it's rather confusing to some of us this
The WHAT WG repeatedly talks about consensus on the mailing list,
where's the consensus on this mailing list that reflects the above
document, it's not one I agree with - and it's not one that most of
the other people at the workshop agreed with, you seem to be giving
this response without actually conversation on the consensus.
> > 3) Macromedia and Adobe have no interest supporting Web Forms because
> > they both have competing products (Flash and SVG).
> This was made quite clear at the Web Apps workshop.
You just wrote that Macromedia weren't even there! so quite how they
made anything clear I don't know. You also need to remember that
Adobes SVG Viewer 6 preview contains an HTML user agent, so they
clearly do have an interest in HTML. Perhaps your percieved lack of
interest in WF2 is due to something else?
More information about the whatwg