W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: brainstorming: test cases, issues, goals, etc.

From: Matthew Ratzloff <matt@builtfromsource.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <50065.152.157.114.66.1173912784.squirrel@webmail.builtfromsource.com>
To: public-html@w3.org

On Wed, March 14, 2007 2:00 pm, Laurens Holst wrote:
> Similarly, there are several things in XHTML2 that are not in 'HTML5'
> but which I think are architecturally more sound and should be in there.

Agreed.  There are some things I love in HTML 5 (client-side storage, much
of Web Forms 2, <progress>); some things that I can see liking
(<header>--although it might confuse things on the server side, <footer>);
some things I hate (<font>, predefined classes); some things I find
unnecessary, superficial, or vaguely defined (<aside>, <article>, <samp>,
<kbd>, link types); and at least one thing that could prove to be a
complete annoyance (<contextmenu>).

This isn't part of the charter, but I also feel like more should be done
to bring HTML 5 closer in line with XHTML 2, so that HTML 5 stands on its
own but also eases transition from HTML 4 to XHTML 2.  This could impact
XHTML 2's spec as well (for example, removing the need for its <img> tag,
which is redundant given <object>).  I know not everyone is a fan of XHTML
2 as it currently stands, but it has got a lot right (<nl>, for one).

In any event, I think if the WHAT spec is brought into this working group
(that is, if patent policy allows it), it should undergo a full review. 
The current timeline (at least for the initial working draft) just doesn't
seem realistic.

-Matt
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 22:53:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 14 March 2007 22:53:32 GMT