W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2008

RE: several messages

From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 10:07:42 -0400
To: "'Lachlan Hunt'" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "'Jirka Kosek'" <jirka@kosek.cz>
Cc: "'HTMLWG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0f7001c90dce$6e925e40$4bb71ac0$@com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Lachlan Hunt
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 8:37 AM
> To: Jirka Kosek
> Subject: Re: several messages
> I don't think it's fair that HTML5 should bend over backwards to cater
> for XSLT any more than other authoring tools, especially when, as you
> pointed out, the DOCTYPE is only a very minor issue compared with
> supporting all the other new features of HTML5.  Just accept the fact
> that XSLT 1.0 is not designed for outputting HTML5 and is limited to
> outputting a mostly HTML4 compatible subset of it, and get one with
> defining the new output method that solves all the issues together.

I could not agree more. XSLT is *not our problem*. Throughout every other discussion on this list that I have seen, compatibility with browser behavior is paramount. Compatibility with authoring tools, XML (and its related specs), etc. is virtually never a concern. The assumption has always been (and should always be) that any authoring tool will need to be updated if it wants to produce HTML 5. For good reason, too. Otherwise, we'd just be re-writing the HTML 4 spec to make it a bit more clear or something.

> Also, I think the idea of this WG defining a new output method for XSLT
> is absurd.  Let the XSLT WG take on the responsibility of maintaining
> their own standard, instead of shifting it all onto us.

Again, agreed.

Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 14:08:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:38 UTC