<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br>
<div class="im"><br>
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Adam Shannon<<a href="mailto:ashannon1000@gmail.com">ashannon1000@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> If we never cut things off then the spec will really never be finished<br>
> before 2020.<br>
<br>
</div>Why does this matter? At the end of the day isn't the goal to have the<br>
largest number of interoperable features? Consider one reality where<br>
we try to limit what HTML5 is, and it has n features, and we get an<br>
average of n*.9 features interoperably implemented on browsers by<br>
2020. Consider an alternate reality where we let things be a bit more<br>
open-ended and we get n*1.5*.9 features interoperably implemented by<br>
2020.<br>
<br>
Isn't the second reality better?<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
- a<br>
</font></blockquote></div><div><br></div>If you are looking for quantity of features then yes it is better, but if you are looking for quality of implementations then the latter is not as good. I would highly prefer IE to have <video>, <audio>, <canvas>, geoLocation implemented in IE9 than "wasting" that update trying to decide if we should reopen the codec issue (example of possible debate).<div>
<br></div><div>Sure, if we can wait 10 years for HTML5 then neither matters, but I don't think that we have that option. A 20 year spec will not stand the test of time nor provide the needed qualifications for the pace of development.<br clear="all">
<br>-- <br>- Adam Shannon ( <a href="http://ashannon.us">http://ashannon.us</a> )<br>
</div>