Re: Is "breaking the Web" with HTML 5 a non issue?

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