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
 
Sam Ruby  
View profile  
 More options Feb 18 2009, 5:37 pm
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.platform
From: Sam Ruby <sa3r...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Local: Wed, Feb 18 2009 5:37 pm
Subject: Re: An alternate take on HTML5
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Feb 18, 3:30 pm, Robert O'Callahan <rob...@ocallahan.org> wrote:

> On 19/2/09 6:13 AM, rubys wrote:

> > The current W3C plan (<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/>) is: 2009-06 HTML5
> > Candidate Recommendation

> > I don't believe that achieving that milestone with all of the features
> > in Ian's draft is achievable.

> Sure.

> > What's plan B?

> > One alternative is to take as long as it takes until all of the
> > features are done.

> > Another is to take a reasonable stab at pruning features.

> > Another is to stage features across multiple releases.

> This last one, but calling the releases "HTML 4.x", wouldn't bother me.
> I'm assuming that whichever option is taken, Ian's HTML5 document
> continues to be the destination.

I'll bet that ECMAScript 3.1 will end up becoming officially
ECMAScript 4 by the time it is published.  What was ECMAScript 4 got
its scope "adjusted" (read: significantly reduced) and is now being
called by a code name and not with a number.  Some things may be
unfortunate and beyond our control.  I'm just pointing this out as I
don't want to mislead anyone.  Even if we were to agree now that Rob's
document was to be called 4.1, what it ends up getting published as
may be different.  If it takes six years and three releases, those
releases may very well end up being named HTML5, HTML6, and HTML7.

With the caveat that Ian's document is a rapidly moving target and may
contain a number of items that may never attain consensus, I am
comfortable in saying that I feel that Ian's document represents the
best current thinking on the long term evolution of HTML.

> Rob

- Sam Ruby

 
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