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

Re: Support Existing Content (was: Proposed Design Principles review)

From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:48:27 +0100
Message-ID: <46361DDB.4040203@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
CC: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>



Murray Maloney wrote:

> So, I may be alone -- consider this a cry in the dark -- but I still 
> don't think
> that the browser should define HTML. That was the POV that was pomulgated
> by Mosaic and Netscape developers back in 1994. I didn't buy it then and I
> don't buy it now. HTML is more than what the browser guys say it is.

You're most certainly not alone.  I joined this group because the
message that was coming across loud-and-clear on WWW-HTML was just
that, and I -- like you -- strongly disagree with the philosophy.

As Tina Holmboe wrote on WWW-HTML, in reply to a message
from Lachlan Hunt :

>> Yes.  Any behaviour we define has to be compatible with the existing 
>> content on the web, much of which relies on such behaviour.  This 
>> doesn't mean we need to document every single bug in every browser. 
>> We need to define a common set
> 
>  A common set of /bugs/ with which new standards/browsers should be
>  compliant? Did I understand you correctly? 

The W3C should define HTML, and browser manufacturers should be
willing to accept that definition (or to reject it, at their own
risk: this is a free world), but it would be a great boost for
standards were the "W3C HTML 5" logo to be as applicable to
/browsers/ as it will be to web pages.

Philip Taylor
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 16:48:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:43 UTC