W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2009

discussions of HTML6

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:52:03 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0270912040652h1771b06ai69737e12f396988c@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
This is a general observation, based on discussions I've read in the
IRCs, the WhatWG email list, and in this email list. I keep seeing a
reference to HTML6 (and HTML7 and so on).

Specifications are not like applications.  There is no such thing as
an old or out of date specification, if what it defined continues to
work.

Specifications for something like HTML need to be extremely stable
because it can take years to remove past mistakes. It's not like
popping out a new version of gimp. It's not even like popping out a
new operating system version, such as Snow Leopard or Windows 7. It
should be more like putting out a new version of the Internet
Protocol: something that's fundamental to the web, generating many
dependencies, and extremely significant expense and time when changed.

When we make statements such as "Oh, we can put that off to HTML6", or
"If this doesn't work, we'll just pull it in HTML6", what we doing, in
effect, is signaling this group's failure. Either we're trying to
include too much in the umbrella term of "HTML", including application
specific material, which is very volatile; or we're not dealing with
issues correctly, or facing problems and disconnects directly.

Regardless, any mention of HTML6 in this group should be treated as an
admission of failure on the part of this group.

We should be looking at HTML5, as an entity that can meet the needs
for a web page markup, and associate DOM, both now, and in the future.

Shelley
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 14:52:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:54 UTC