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 20:13:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4A1C315A.70707@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 12.34:
> On Tue, 26 May 2009, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>   
>> 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 HTML4?
>>     
>
> In the context of the interview, what is the difference between these two 
> HTML4s? I don't understand the question.
>   

Tell me about that other HTML 4, please. I really wonder how one can say 
that HTML 4 is winning and mean that something that isn't in the HTML 4 
spec is winning.

>>>> 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.
>>     
>
> I don't understand what this means

The high deployment of HTML that you talk about includes a lot of XHTML.

>  or its relevance to either my comments above or the discussion as a whole.
>   

I just note that one can praise "HTML 4" outside the WG. But when "HTML 
4" is mentioned here, it is used as pretext for dismissing the argument.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 18:17:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:03 UTC