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

Re: Choosing name for XML serialization

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:01:06 +0200
Message-ID: <467F7642.1070605@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, mark.birbeck@x-port.net, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Ok, so browsers will still be compatible, but the documents will not be 
>> conforming anymore.
> I don't understand. Old documents wouldn't be any less conforming to their 
> contemporary specifications than they are now. New documents would use the 
> new features (e.g. CSS in place of align="").

HTML documents using the *style* attribute will not be conforming HTML5 
documents (you seem to avoid the style attribute in this discussion :-).

>> To me, that seems like an extremely bad idea, potentially driving people 
>> away from checking document conformance. On purpose?
> I don't really understand what you think the "bad idea" is.

It's a bad idea because it will only affect those people who actually 
care about conformance (others won't notice the change), potentially 
causing those people not to use HTML5 at all, or not to bother with 
conformance checks anymore.

The style attribute (IMHO) is not broken, so it doesn't need to be 
fixed. Adding the scoped style element is a separate topic (and a good 
idea). Currently the WG spends an enormous time to discuss why certain 
things have been changed from HTML4.01, and again and again we hear 
"this only affects conformance, not browser implementations", as if the 
conformance definition is unimportant.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 08:01:15 UTC

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