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

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

From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:37:32 +0100
Message-Id: <84DACEE1-6E72-4D9C-998D-1F71C140B9C5@gmail.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>

I was actually in the process of fleshing out my original point to  
clarify I was merely refering to the subset - and repeating what I  
had been told in previous posts, but you got in there before me with  
the other class of browsers comment.

On 30 Apr 2007, at 17:20, Murray Maloney wrote:

>
> At 04:49 PM 4/30/2007 +0100, Gareth Hay wrote:
>> Isn't the whole idea of the, so-called HTML5, that the page will
>> render according to the specification in all browsers?
>
> That is not a possibility unless I am missing something.
>
> Browsers -- by which I assume that you mean that class of browser
> which is found on computer desktops -- are not all there is.
>
> There are also aural and tactile browsers. Not to mention wet-ware  
> browsers.
>
> I can read HTML. I can parse it. I can understand most of what is  
> intended by
> non-interactive HTML pages. I am able to treat HTML as if it is a  
> continuum
> from HTML 2.0 to what I may receive over HTTP at any moment. Is the  
> HTML 5
> spec intended to leave all non-desktop browsers in the dark?
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
> Murray
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 18:37:46 UTC

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