- From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 08:26:02 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Groundhog day? On 2 May 2007, at 10:28, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Wed, 02 May 2007 11:03:27 +0200, Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com> > wrote: >> it doesn't ignore it - these sytems will *not* overnight suddenly >> declare themselves to be sending html5 compliant code. >> I don't agree that using content from differing sources is like black >> magic, and the problems that you mention originate from the poor >> error >> handling of previous versions of html anyway. > > Why do you believe that a new version will magically overcome all the > engineering problems? Implementations of HTML5 will still have > bugs, both > browsers and content. I think there's far more evidence that an > incremental evolvement of HTML will be successful (it's already > happening, > it works for CSS, SVG, etc.) than that major breakage will work > (XHTML2). > > In fact, I thought the HTML WG was about incremental evolution of > HTML as > opposed to breaking backwards compatibility for no good reason. > (This is > certainly true for the WHATWG, which is way some of your comments > there > may have been dismissed.) > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > <http://annevankesteren.nl/> > <http://www.opera.com/> > > <winmail.dat>
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 07:26:29 UTC