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

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

From: Bill Mason <w3c@accessibleinter.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:57:23 -0700
Message-ID: <46646093.20106@accessibleinter.net>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk wrote:
> 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.

Because?

And if you were to start from XHTML 1 (which is clearly not going to be 
the case), how do you account for the charter requirement "taking into 
account legacy implementations"?

> 
> 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
> Web.

One web page with one old element would not constitute "HTML as 
practiced on the web".

> 
> 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?

They also would not constitute HTML as practiced on the web.


> 
> Bob
> 
> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: Re: toward W3C Working Draft: design principles? spec? other?
> (survey)
> 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).
> 
> 


-- 
Bill Mason
Accessible Internet
w3c@accessibleinter.net
http://accessibleinter.net/
Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 18:57:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:45 UTC