MozillaZine

Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group Launches Mailing List

Friday June 4th, 2004

Ian Hickson writes: "Some of you may be interested to hear that people from Opera and Mozilla have set up an open mailing list for discussing Web Forms 2 and other new specs that have been discussed in various places over the last few months."

The list is the public forum of the newly-formed Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group, an organisation made of contributors from several major Web browser development teams. Current invited members are Brendan Eich, David Baron, David Hyatt, Håkon Wium Lie, Ian Hickson, Johnny Stenback and Maciej Stachowiak.

The group is working on specifications for Web Forms 2.0, Web Apps 1.0, Web Controls 1.0 and a CSS object rendering model. This work will be largely done outside of the World Wide Web Consortium, though finalised versions of the specs are expected to be submitted for formal standardisation. While the decision to operate independently of the W3C may be seen as controversial, many feel that formal standards bodies move too slowly to react to proprietary technologies such as Microsoft's forthcoming XAML. In addition, many in the W3C are pushing for Web applications standards based on technologies such as XForms and Scalable Vector Graphics, whereas the members of the WHATWG favour backwards-compatible HTML-based solutions, which they believe would be easier to implement and more likely to be adopted by Web developers.


#28 It's very easy to count Opera numbers

by leafdigital

Monday June 7th, 2004 2:17 AM

You are replying to this message

Opera numbers are very easy to count. Search for the string 'Opera' in the useragent. (Though I agree that the practice of spoofing useragents by default - something that nearly *all* browsers do to a greater or lesser extent, Opera being rather greater than most - is disturbing and not to be welcomed.)

If your tracker doesn't count Opera, which is the #3 browser engine (below MSIE/Win and Gecko) on the (non-technical) site stats I've looked at, then it's entirely broken. You should cease using that software and write to them to tell them why. I mean, if the Top 40 music charts only got as far as #2 wouldn't you consider that pretty poor?

The correct, relevant way to count is (a) to count engines or engine versions, and only (b) - for mild interest - to track actual specific browser versions. This is something most log analysers seem yet to realise. Damnit, maybe I should write one specifically for that...

--sam