[whatwg] some issues

[Ian Hickson]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 13:59:23 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
>> The W3C doesn't distinguish between a company asserting intentions to
>> submit, and employees of that company asserting such intentions.
>
> Oh right, where abouts is this in the process

Chapters 2 and 11. Note how it doesn't distinguish between Members, and
Employees of Members.

It's definitely not something we want to risk the entire process over.


>> Anyway, as I've mentioned before, we don't know. There are good
>> arguments for several organisations.
>
> So what's your response to C Williams points which have generally been
> agreed with on this post that the W3c is the only appropriate
> organisation (due to the changing of a W3c spec and others not wanting
> to tread on toes.)  You seem to have missed that part here.

That is a good argument for submitting these specifications to the W3C.
Arguments against are the W3C membership's lack of interest in developing
HTML, as noted at the recent workshop on Web Applications.  Arguments in
favour of ECMA are that JavaScript was well-handled by the ECMA group.
Arguments in favour of IETF are similar to the Atom group's arguments.

Like I said, there are arguments in both directions for several
organisations, which is why we simply don't know, at this stage, what will
eventually happen.

It really doesn't matter at this stage anyway, we're still in draft stage
and have nothing resembling a test suite or anything.


> Just what I say, there's no feedback from standards orgs being solicited
> - you've just got the mailing list, no active solicitation from
> standards orgs (this was a comment in response to one about standards
> orgs, I'm not saying it's a bad thing)

Well, the Web Forms 2 Call For Comments was announced on at least two W3C
mailing lists:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2004Jun/0002.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2004Jun/0035.html

Is that not active? Or did you mean something else?


>> Thus, Web Forms 2.0 is designed to be implementable on mobile UAs from
>> the start, and no mobile-specific profile is required.
>
> So RAM needs of Opera are a couple of MB these days?

I can't comment on figures, but Web Forms 2 doesn't really add much to
the requirements.


> So you're saying that the current consensus of this list is that XHTML
> Basic is not appropriate for WF-2? (I've not seen this, so far I've seen
> me saying for, you saying against - that ain't consensus)

I haven't said XHTML Basic is not appropriate for WF-2.

I've said XHTML Basic is not appropriate, full stop.

I really don't have any interest in profiles, and as noted by the position
paper cited above, the WHATWG members in general think device-specific
profiles are a bad thing. So I doubt WHATWG will ever write anything to do
with profiles.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'