W3C Web Applications/Compound Documents

Daniel Glazman points out a new position paper Hixie (most likely) authored.

Most interesting he concludes:

I think this paper is going to face a fierce resistance…

Personally I give my vote on most resistance to Microsoft.

I’m curious what others think reading some of these. It’s really quite interesting. I’ve had a great time reading since Hixie mentioned it on his blog the other day. This is the stuff I enjoy reading most. It’s like SiFi, and reality merging into one. Ok, enough geek speak, time for work.

3 thoughts on “W3C Web Applications/Compound Documents

  1. Of the papers I read, the join mozilla/opera paper seems to be the most relevent. I certainly hope everyone at the upcoming conference has a good laugh at Microsoft’s proposal.

    The discussion on WebApps should conducted by web developers. There are some great minds working with/for the w3c but I feel many of them have lost touch with what they are supposed to be doing. And it is the web developers that would have to embrace any new tech that comes out of this.

    HTML/CSS is a powerful combination. Instead of a whole new b e a s t for us to learn, fix/update markup! Give HTML up to date widgets. (CSS needs a slight fix too to allow two parents for table cells but that’s a whole other rant.)

  2. >Should there be a set of predefined compound document profiles (e.g. XHTML Basic + SMIL Basic + SVG Tiny)?
    >>No. Such documents are rarely useful as UAs do not generally limit themselves to particular profiles. If a specification is so large that it requires profiling and/or cannot be implemented on small devices, then it is a failing of the specification that should be solved by editing the complete spec, possibly simplifying or obsoleting some parts.

    The most interesting part in my opinion; cf. .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *