- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:23:33 +0200
- To: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- CC: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, Andrew Sidwell <w3c@andrewsidwell.co.uk>, Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>, public-html@w3.org
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: > > > On 23 Sep 2008, at 02:53, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > >> >> Andrew Sidwell 2008-09-22 18.47: >> >>> In short, yes; the suggestion to junk backwards compatibility is the >>> polar opposite of how the spec (and the Web!) has been developed to >>> date. HTML5 is a specification of how to handle text/html and >>> application/xhtml+xml documents, not how to handle a subset of >>> text/html with a certain magic string at the beginning. >> >> Actually, the HTML 5 draft *is* about how to handle a subset of >> text/html. Allthough a very large subset of the Web. > > If it's only a subset, it isn't good enough. It needs to define > everything, otherwise de-facto it remains undefined. My understanding is > it is the aim to document everything. Strictly speaking if it defines "everything" then no extension point will be left. Leaving things undefined can be a feature. BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 15:24:17 UTC