W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Proposal to Adopt HTML5

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 02:36:52 -0700
Message-Id: <F2CD5C7F-9555-4DD7-9F33-9F1E01F150B7@apple.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: Henrik Dvergsdal <henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no>


Hi Henrik,

On Apr 10, 2007, at 2:22 AM, Henrik Dvergsdal wrote:

>
> OK, it looks like the people behind this proposal also agree on the  
> question of version information.
>
> So just to make sure I get this right: To me it looks like you are  
> proposing the following strategy:

The proposal only proposes what it says. Any other decisions should  
be discussed separately.

> 1. We start with HTML5 in its current state.

We did propose this.

> 2. We add all all that's necessary to define "exactly how to handle  
> the web as it is today" (Hunt). This means all components that are  
> being used in current web pages, including, for instance, elements  
> like <blink>, <blackface> and <marquee> and all the "undocumented,  
> unspecified, frozen set of bugs" (Hickson) that people rely on out  
> there.
>
> 3. We organize the standard into sets of "recommended", "right"   
> components, and sets of forbidden, "wrong" components:
>
> This "effectively means that we discourage people from using the  
> elements (it's forbidden, the elements don't event exist as far as  
> authors are concerned), but "require" user agents to support them  
> so they don't lose market share, render the web and such" (van  
> Kesteren, offlist).
>
> 4. We then freeze the standard and let evolve in two ways only: (1)  
> by bug fixing and (2) by incorporating new components once they  
> actually being used - "we cannot afford to change behavior, nor can  
> we afford to remove features from browsers once they are  
> used" (Hickson).  This means that if, for instance, Microsoft  
> implements some new element in IE and people start using it, it  
> will automatically be included in the standard and all the others  
> will have to follow.

We did not propose any of points 2-4 in our letter. I also note that  
none of the people you cited signed the letter. I am not sure why you  
ascribe the words of one set of people to another set. I'm not even  
sure the people you quoted would agree with the way you stated these  
points.

I could give my personal opinion on these points if you are curious  
but I don't think it is relevant to the question of adopting HTML5.  
And I certainly would not be speaking for everyone who signed the  
letter.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 09:37:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:52 GMT