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

Re: simple shorthand syntax proposal

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:37:35 -0600
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <23A8CA53-086B-4124-8B3C-F15B6A6EE8B1@robburns.com>
To: "Alexey Feldgendler" <alexeyf@opera.com>

Hi Håkon,

On Feb 5, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:

>
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:32:16 +0100, Håkon Wium Lie  
> <howcome@opera.com> wrote:
>
>> And to summarize that discussion: some people think the proposal goes
>> against the requirement for backwards compatibility, other think it's
>> too late to introduce it, and some think the syntax is so compelling
>> that the costs could be worth it.
>>
>> I'm in the last category, but -- after reading the discussion -- it
>> seems that consensus will be out of reach for now. Let's keep it in
>> mind for HTML6.
>
> When time comes to develop HTML6, exactly the same argument will be  
> valid, and exactly the same considerations would lead to it being  
> kept in mind for HTML7. Therefore, the only two reasonable choices  
> are now or never.

Perhaps this could be something brought into the HTML5 parser. It  
could also be a separate parser, with a corresponding separate  
serialization algorithm, and a separate serialized form definition.

For example the HTML parsing does not now prohibit "." or "#" from tag  
names (not that I think there is a legacy content support issue worth  
raising here though). So it is something that could be brought into  
the HTML5 parser without breaking legacy content, but it does require  
blocking such tag names (which seems fine to me). Its not backwards  
compatible only in the weak sense that current parsing isn't handled  
that way, so using it for actually deployed content would have to wait  
until all targeted UAs supported the syntax.

Take care,
Rob
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 21:38:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:29 GMT