- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:11:06 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jan 16, 2009, at 14:48 , Sam Ruby wrote:
> One such tool is mentioned in the bug report[8] cited in my prior
> email:
>
> [8] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6336
>
As one who uses such tools, I would tend to think that I would expect
them to require updates to their HTML serialisations in order to
support new empty elements anyway, and therefore that tossing in a
change for the DOCTYPE wouldn't be much work. For the user who really
wants to produce HTML5 the tooling update is minimal; and if there's
anyone out there who is at the same time so cutting edge that they
want to produce HTML5 but so conservative that they won't upgrade a
serialisation library I would tend to think that they have enough
issues of their own that we don't need to meddle.
At the end of the day, the above means that I could live with any
option. But really, I think we'll be better off with having just the
one option, and have it as short and simple as possible. Ideally I
would live best with whichever option closes this small issue as fast
as possible, even if it takes a formal vote.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Friday, 16 January 2009 14:11:42 UTC