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

Re: Choosing name for XML serialization (Was: Re: HTML5 differences from HTML4 editor's draft (XHTML5 and XHTML2))

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:46:20 +0200
To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tugynirt64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:40:56 +0200, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>  
wrote:
> Sure, but that's the easy bit. It's simply a decision about whether
> deprecating something means that it should no longer be supported or
> merely regarded as bad practice. You can take it both ways though;
> whilst I recognise the motivation for indicating that user agents
> should still support 'old' features, it's not a completely smooth
> approach. As we all know, a big problem for authors is that they tend
> to code HTML (and CSS) through trial and error, and the approach of
> HTML 5 will continue the confusion relating to what is
> browser-specific and what is in the spec.

If all browsers are required to support the same set of features in what  
way will they be confused?


> But anyway, what about the other side of the equation? What about
> authors who use 'video' in a document, which finds its way to an older
> browser? There is nothing that can be done here within the language--a
> problem for both HTML 5 and XTML 2.

HTML as designed is forwards compatible so that if you add elements that  
support fallback content that content will render in older browsers.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 08:46:34 UTC

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