- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:11:12 +0200
- To: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 2007-09-13 19:29:07 +0200 James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >>> This would be a real problem if our task was to write errata for >>> HTML4. >>> Fortunately it is not. Therefore we can concentrate on the rather >>> more >>> interesting task of working out what the HTML 5 spec ought to say >>> in order >>> that it is as useful as possible. >> >> It is not interesting if we are ignoring what we have, and set forth >> as if >> we had just arrived at terra nullus > > We can cannibalize HTML 4 for ideas even without absolute agreement > on how it > is supposed to be interpreted. I am on a much lower level here: Regardless what the truth is about how difficult it is to agree about HTML 4, it should be extremely simple, to quote those parts of text which are supposed to back up - or contradict - ones interpretation. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2007 19:11:42 UTC