Re: <q> vs <p>

Sam Kuper wrote:
> 2008/10/31 Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk 

[snip]

> Well, the second option there was never conformant, so it doesn't make 
> sense to mark it as deprecated. The first option wasn't advised or, 
> really, mentioned at all in HTML 4.x, so it doesn't make sense to mark 
> that deprecated either (there's nothing to mark).

I don't follow your logical here, Sam.

> Please could you read those proposals?

I have, Sam, otherwise I would not feel in
a position to respond.

>     and the legacy mode of operation then
>     defined to produce optimal results for whichever
>     group predominates.
> 
> 
> Leaving the rest to render wrongly, presumably.

Exactly.

> I sure wouldn't be happy to have a "legacy" mode implemented in browsers 
> which would potentially apply an inappropriate rendering algorithm to 
> 49% of the existing Web.

That is exactly the situation with the current generation
of browsers; I genuinely fail to see why a new generation
go out of its way to improve on current behaviour for
legacy documents.

Philip TAYLOR