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

Re: A suggestion from the public

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:51:18 -0400
Message-ID: <4AE79586.7030605@mit.edu>
To: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org
On 10/27/09 8:40 PM, Justin James wrote:
> 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.

So they want HTML 3.2, right?  This exists....

> They want it to be considered conforming and valid by the current HTML spec.

Why?

> iframe would only be a winner of a solution if DOCTYPE worked the way most
> HTML authors think it works

Why?

 > Overall, casual HTML authors just *despise* CSS.

Sure.  Just like casual word processor users despise stylesheet features 
in word processors or systems like LaTeX when they run into them.  I 
understand where they're coming from.  I just don't make the connection 
between their desire for a presentation-oriented markup language 
(presumably because wysiwyg HTML editors are not filling their needs?) 
and HTML5, when it seems that HTML 3.2 fills their needs perfectly well.

 > 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.

The big change in HTML4 was a conscious move away from HTML being 
treated as a wysiwyg authoring language and towards being a semantic 
markup language.  This immediately introduces a level of indirection 
most people aren't used to dealing with in content they author, where 
you have to describe what you _mean_, not what you want it to look like. 
  Again, I can understand all that.  What I can't quite understand is 
why we have a set of people who apparently want to:

1)  Make use of presenational markup (understandable on its own, sure).
2)  Have their documents validate as HTML5 (understandable on its own,
     sure, largely for bureaucratic reasons)

The existence of such a demographic is the crux of the issue here, right?
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 00:52:04 GMT

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