[whatwg] The src-N proposal
w3c at marcosc.com
Mon Nov 18 05:38:49 PST 2013
On Sunday, November 17, 2013 at 8:07 PM, whatwg-request at lists.whatwg.org wrote:
> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 08:19:00 -0800
> From: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage at gmail.com (mailto:jackalmage at gmail.com)>
> To: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa at apple.com (mailto:rniwa at apple.com)>
> Cc: whatwg <whatwg at whatwg.org (mailto:whatwg at whatwg.org)>, Timothy Hatcher <timothy at apple.com (mailto:timothy at apple.com)>
> Subject: Re: [whatwg] The src-N proposal
> <CAAWBYDB34Wh6fLCBodozKOABGLrib53A=B2-0Yv=BCd0qgecbA at mail.gmail.com (mailto:BCd0qgecbA at mail.gmail.com)>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa at apple.com (mailto:rniwa at apple.com)> wrote:
> > Without starting a debate on what semantics or aesthetics mean, syntax is a big deal. A bad syntax can totally kill a feature.
> Believe me, I agree; I named my last coding project "Bikeshed", after all. ^_^
> This is why I find it puzzling that a syntax accepted by the RICG and
> a lot of authors is being shot down by a few implementors. This is
> why I've been classifying the objections as "personal aesthetic
> concerns" - I don't know how to classify them otherwise. The proposed
> syntax doesn't seem to offend average authors, who grasp it well
> enough (it's a pretty simple translation from what they already liked
> in <picture>). It just offends a few of you from WebKit, some of whom
> have been a bit hyperbolic in expressing their dislike.
Agree. It would be ideal to try to find a way forward here with src-n.
As we’ve already indicated, Mozilla are strongly behind src-n as we feel it best meets the use cases, and has the broadest developers support. Aesthetic concerns would seem to be very low on the priority of constituencies. Let’s not further erode those principles for the sake of markup aesthetics.
So, I kindly ask that we seek to find a way forward with src-n.
More information about the whatwg