[whatwg] Scripted querying of <video> capabilities

Kristof Zelechovski giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl
Wed Aug 20 06:10:35 PDT 2008

No, no, and no.
Author's POV:
Mass complaints about _supposedly_ incompatible Web content from incompetent
end users would only cause me, as the author, to file a complaint with the
browser vendor.  The browser should not pretend it is omniscient and it can
teach everyone around.
Vendor's POV:
Browser vendors can and should agree on the basic constructs and provide the
relevant publisher's documentation for the good of the Web; advertising the
competitors' products would be an unreasonable requirement.
User's POV:
I am unwilling to help my browser vendor get the page that works for me
display correctly in another product I do not intend to use.  The warning is
obtrusive, it warns about something immaterial and it bears a slight
resemblance to a chain letter.

-----Original Message-----
From: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org
[mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of timeless
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Scripted querying of <video> capabilities

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Kristof Zelechovski
<giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl> wrote:
> Only the user that actually encounters a Web site deficiency should report
> it to the creator/owner (assuming they provided a reverse link).

> Otherwise such a report should be ignored as a supposition.

mass complaints work better.

> Why should browser vendors bother that some pages do not display correctly
> in other browsers?

for the good of the web.

> This is a validator's job, and a validator is an authoring tool.

i highly doubt this will work.

> That would mean supporting your competitor, wouldn't it?

can't we all get along and work for a better web?

but yes, it would mean helping your own engine on another profile
which might not support the same features.

More information about the whatwg mailing list