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

Re: Design Principles

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 06:19:19 +0200
Message-ID: <4A1B6DC7.10205@malform.no>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson On 09-05-26 05.40:
> On Tue, 26 May 2009, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>> It's certainly true that some people aren't ignoring HTML4, but IMHO 
>>> arguments that invoke HTML4 as a reason for doing something in HTML5 
>>> have close to no weight.
>>> [...] The "real world", i.e. deployed implementations, implementation 
>>> experience, legacy content, etc -- as described by the design 
>>> principles in fact -- are orders of magnitude more important than 
>>> anything else.
>> Here is a quote about the "real world":
>>    "HTML 4 is also in direct competition with proprietary technologies,
>>    and itís winning, hands-down." [1]
>> Probably of close to zero value.
> Yes, as an argument for keeping or not keeping a feature in HTML5, that's 
> a completely worthless argument.
> (In fact it's not an argument at all.)
> I really don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Another quote from the same page: "imperative that HTML be extended in a 
backwards-compatible way".

So HTML 4 is winning. And HTML 5 has to be backwards-compatible.

It really sounds from this as if it is very important to be compatible 
with HTML 4.  It really sounds as if mentioning HTML 4 should have had 
close to high weight. (Except that the air we are breathing  is called 
HTML 4 so  we really should have something more unobvious to say.)

Perhaps you really meant that the DOM is winning? That "text/html" is 
winning? However, that sounded so boring ...

>> [1] http://www.webstandards.org/2009/05/13/interview-with-ian-hickson-editor-of-the-html-5-specification/ 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 04:19:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:45 UTC