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 20:40:01 -0400
To: "'Boris Zbarsky'" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02ae01ca5767$2f2c97a0$8d85c6e0$@com>
Please keep in mind, this is a combination of feedback from folks in
general. Nothing specific. The overall idea is that people want a simplified
version of HTML, that does not require CSS, with a low barrier to entry.
They want it to be considered conforming and valid by the current HTML spec.
iframe would only be a winner of a solution if DOCTYPE worked the way most
HTML authors think it works, and even then, only one person has actually
mentioned being able to embed "older style HTML" in new HTML. Overall,
casual HTML authors just *despise* CSS. While I disagree with that
particular feeling (I think CSS' advantages far outweigh the learning
curve), and while I think that anyone hand authoring HTML should learn to do
it right, I can definitely understand why there are a lot of people who are
really upset at the increasing complexity of HTML, starting with version 4.

J.Ja

-----Original Message-----
From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:22 PM
To: Justin James
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: A suggestion from the public

On 10/27/09 4:51 PM, Justin James wrote:
> iframe might be a workable solution, if there was a reliable way to signal
> to a browser to use an older HTML spec, not just the quirks/standards mode
> dichotomy.

I'm not sure I follow.  Which elements would you like treated by 
browsers differently than the HTML5 spec says they should be treated, 
and what are the differences?

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 00:41:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:51 GMT