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

Re: Formal Objection to Questions 1 and 2; Abstention on Question 3

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 11:55:41 +0200
To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.trwghahz64w2qv@id-c0020.oslo.opera.com>

On Sun, 06 May 2007 11:27:33 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> Hmm.. come to think of it. It's quite a pity that that is what the  
> charter says. Would have been better to say that the language should  
> have been based on the markup that is currently used on the internet.  
> Too bad we didn't think of that earlier.

FWIW, the deliverables section our charter  
http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#deliverables does mention:

   "A serialized form of such a language using a defined,
   non-XML syntax compatible with the 'classic HTML'
   parsers of existing Web browsers."

which sort of addresses that point I think. (Which actually also addresses  
all the debate about draconian versus non-draconian handling come to think  
of it...)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 09:56:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:44 UTC