Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
mozilla.dev.platform
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion An alternate take on HTML5
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Ian Hickson  
View profile  
 More options Feb 18 2009, 8:06 pm
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.platform
From: Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:06:03 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Wed, Feb 18 2009 8:06 pm
Subject: Re: An alternate take on HTML5
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, sayrer wrote:
> On Feb 18, 6:44 pm, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, sayrer wrote:

> > > To publish a document with well defined error handling and a very
> > > select few new features, quickly.

> > I think this is a laudable goal, if executed fully. (My concern is
> > that we should not leave features define in the spec under-defined,
> > otherwise what's the point -- after all, HTML4 already does a fine job
> > of being an incomplete specification!)

> This statement seems to imply that improving the specification is an
> all-or-nothing proposition when it comes to existing features. I do not
> agree. To use a specific example, I don't plan on including a
> "Rendering" section, as HTML5 does. I think getting consensus on the
> Rendering section is an effort that matches the time scale you have
> outlined for HTML5.

Since the section is non-normative, I actually expect consensus on that
section to be the least of the troubles in HTML5.

> I recognize you might not agree, and I expect "getting consensus" is
> more important to me than to you.

But you don't have consensus on not having the rendering section...

> In other words, I would rather deliver an incomplete deliverable on
> time, than a complete one very late.

I entirely agree with this. You'll note that HTML5 has been exactly on
track to the published timetable ever since we had a timetable.

I guess I don't really see the point of doing something quickly if it
leaves things underdefined -- underdefined (as opposed to omitted
entirely) seems far worse than slow.

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


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google