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

Re: A suggestion from the public

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:04:18 -0700
Cc: 'Boris Zbarsky' <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <7FF11416-61F5-44FE-ACF0-4D6EB8E990D6@apple.com>
To: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>

On Oct 27, 2009, at 5:40 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.
> 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.

Authoring old-style presentational HTML will work fine in current and  
future browsers, as long as you don't care about validation. If you do  
care about validation, the change you need is in validators, not  
browsers. I don't see how a browser behavior switch is in any way  
relevant to this.

  - Maciej

>
> 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 01:04:57 UTC

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