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 11:55:29 +0200
Message-ID: <4A1BBC91.6000805@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 06.38:
> On Tue, 26 May 2009, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> No, being backwards compatible with the HTML4 spec is worthless. It's 
> being backwards compatible with legacy content and implementations that 
> matters (and that has been a cornerstone of the HTML5 effort).
>   

So it was not the HTML 4 of the spec that was winning but another 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 ...
>>     
>
> Not sure what you mean. I meant that HTML has a high deployment rate today 
> (in terms of user agents and content) compared to Flash and Silverlight, 
> and that the HTML5 work is intended to continue this trend.
>   

XHTML is also HTML.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 09:56:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:37 GMT