Comments on: On Letting Specifications Bloom… http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/2009/02/10/on-letting-specifications-bloom/ Open Standards. Open Source. Open Platform. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:23:01 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: send flowers peru http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/2009/02/10/on-letting-specifications-bloom/comment-page-1/#comment-4624 send flowers peru Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:23:01 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/?p=6#comment-4624 Very helpful tutorial. Thanks a lot for this one. http://www.topfloristperu.com Very helpful tutorial. Thanks a lot for this one.

http://www.topfloristperu.com

]]> By: | Cherish http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/2009/02/10/on-letting-specifications-bloom/comment-page-1/#comment-676 | Cherish Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:05:04 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/?p=6#comment-676 [...] why their are conflicts between W3C and WHATWG on the development of HTML5. This is best said in this post by arun sir. Firefox 3.1 is actually supporting some of the HTML 5 elements like <video> [...] [...] why their are conflicts between W3C and WHATWG on the development of HTML5. This is best said in this post by arun sir. Firefox 3.1 is actually supporting some of the HTML 5 elements like <video> [...]

]]> By: aruner http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/2009/02/10/on-letting-specifications-bloom/comment-page-1/#comment-530 aruner Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:58:47 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/?p=6#comment-530 Doug / Anne, Actually, I'm not confusing Web Workers and Web Sockets, but I am trivializing history. Sure, Web Workers was it's *own* beast for a while, but then got moved to W3C (modulo the charter amendment decision by the W3C AC). So there's the question of the AC vote on the Web Applications charter, and the charter amendment, which haven't yet been resolved. Doug / Anne,

Actually, I’m not confusing Web Workers and Web Sockets, but I am trivializing history. Sure, Web Workers was it’s *own* beast for a while, but then got moved to W3C (modulo the charter amendment decision by the W3C AC). So there’s the question of the AC vote on the Web Applications charter, and the charter amendment, which haven’t yet been resolved.

]]> By: Rigo Wenning http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/2009/02/10/on-letting-specifications-bloom/comment-page-1/#comment-529 Rigo Wenning Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:57:30 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/?p=6#comment-529 Unfortunately, some aspects may put some hair in the soup. W3C draws its renown and reputation from its process. One might hate the process, but it is W3C's tool for vendor neutrality and impartial treatment of contributions. This process has roughly 2 options for documents: Recommendations and Notes. Recommendations are usually documents with mostly normative content, whatever that means. Notes are informative. Having the markup only informative would be a Note. But a Note can not superseed a Recommendation. So the result IMHO would be that HTML4 remains "normative". I have trouble with the word "normative" for W3C as this term comes for the traditional "de-jure" standardization where there are different consequences attached to it. For whatever reason people do not want the markup NOT to be "normative", it is a bad option also for systemic reasons. Again IMHO... Unfortunately, some aspects may put some hair in the soup. W3C draws its renown and reputation from its process. One might hate the process, but it is W3C’s tool for vendor neutrality and impartial treatment of contributions. This process has roughly 2 options for documents: Recommendations and Notes. Recommendations are usually documents with mostly normative content, whatever that means. Notes are informative. Having the markup only informative would be a Note. But a Note can not superseed a Recommendation. So the result IMHO would be that HTML4 remains “normative”. I have trouble with the word “normative” for W3C as this term comes for the traditional “de-jure” standardization where there are different consequences attached to it. For whatever reason people do not want the markup NOT to be “normative”, it is a bad option also for systemic reasons. Again IMHO…

]]> By: Doug Schepers http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/2009/02/10/on-letting-specifications-bloom/comment-page-1/#comment-526 Doug Schepers Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:36:02 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/?p=6#comment-526 Anne, he might have confused Web Workers with Web Sockets, which is also in the process of being split out into WebApps WG. Anne, he might have confused Web Workers with Web Sockets, which is also in the process of being split out into WebApps WG.

]]> By: karl http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/2009/02/10/on-letting-specifications-bloom/comment-page-1/#comment-525 karl Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:50:18 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/?p=6#comment-525 Spring is coming around in the northern hemisphere, maybe it's indeed time for blooming. :) Spring is coming around in the northern hemisphere, maybe it’s indeed time for blooming. :)

]]> By: Anne van Kesteren http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/2009/02/10/on-letting-specifications-bloom/comment-page-1/#comment-522 Anne van Kesteren Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:37:25 +0000 http://blog.mozilla.com/standards/?p=6#comment-522 For what it's worth, Web Workers was never part of HTML5. XMLHttpRequest was. For what it’s worth, Web Workers was never part of HTML5. XMLHttpRequest was.

]]>