- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:03:50 +0100
- To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Robert J Burns wrote: > ... > Sorry, I misspoke there. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Is > it correct that you want to not allow the introduction of new void > elements (rather than what I said you said: not introducing new block > elements))? Is that what you said? I do disagree with that part of what Yes. If that's what's needed to allow producers use new elements without having to be updated or reconfigured. > you're saying (if indeed you said that). I think that if we correct the > currently messed up parsing algorithm, we can accommodate block, inline > and void elements in future HTMLs with much less pain than we're > experiencing now and in a way that is both forward and backwards > compatible. It seems quite ironic that we have the WhatWG here proposing > that we make HTML5 work in a way that will not allow for backwards > compatibility down the road. Yes, if there's a way to reach that goal fine. Right now it seems that HTML5 doesn't even attempt to enhance the extensibility situation. Furthermore, this seems to be due to political reasons (change control), not technical ones. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2008 12:04:34 UTC