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

[Fwd: Re: toward W3C Working Draft: design principles? spec? other? (survey)]

From: <bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:02:25 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <59545.>
To: public-html@w3.org

But HTML 4 is the only W3C Recommendation that can be regarded as current
assuming you don't start from XHTML 1.0 Strict, which would be a better
starting point.

If you don't start from HTML 4 then you have to include the 30 or 40
elements that appeared in earlier versions of HTML and the 50 or 60
elements that appeared in non-standard versions. We will be here until
2100 if we rehash all that old history just because in 1991 some person
produced a web page using one of those elements and it still exists on the

Tim put up a page in 1990 which included a whole set of elements that
never appeared in any of the versions of HTML. Do we need to discuss those
as well?


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: toward W3C Working Draft: design principles? spec? other?
From:    "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Date:    Mon, June 4, 2007 10:58 am
To:      "Henrik Dvergsdal" <henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no>
         "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:27:21 +0200, Henrik Dvergsdal
<henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no> wrote:
> Does this mean you think we should forget all about HTML4? Don't you
> think that we should be able to state the reasons for changes vs. HTML4
> with use cases, research etc.?

I don't think we should assume HTML4 is perfect. The legacy we have is
HTML as practiced on the web, not HTML4. It probably make sense to analyse
features in that light (apart from normally reviewing them).

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 18:02:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:22 UTC