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

RE: A suggestion from the public

From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:52 -0400
To: "'Toby Inkster'" <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>, <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007501ca56ba$13aed090$3b0c71b0$@com>
Toby -

I really think that answer completely ignores the fundamental issue that
these folks have. To make it clear, they are extremely angry that the
*current* HTML efforts ignore this kind of work. They want a way to do
things in a valid, conforming, and "approved" fashion in a current standard,
that does not require all sorts of hoops to jump through.

Like I said, I don't expect anything to come of this in this group. But I
can tell you that many parts of the public "at large" is pretty unhappy with
the direction HTML has been headed in, because they feel that it has lost
its focus on creating documents in favor of becoming an application
platform.

J.Ja

-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Toby Inkster
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 2:23 AM
To: Justin James
Cc: 'Tab Atkins Jr.'; public-html@w3.org
Subject: RE: A suggestion from the public

On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 02:05 -0400, Justin James wrote:
> The overall sentiment that I hear is that people want that style of
> HTML to not be merely "defined" an "obsolete" or "non-conforming", but
> to be considered "valid HTML".

If it's currently valid HTML 3.2 or valid HTML 4.01, then it will
continue to be valid HTML 3.2 or valid HTML 4.01.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 04:02:06 UTC

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