W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Re-registration of text/html

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:23:44 +0100
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100225022344730673.8a5949c9@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Tab Atkins Jr., Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:00:56 -0600:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Leif Halvard Silli:
>> The problem that I see is that HTML5 defines a parser and that the
>> current version of the HTML5 spec draft says that the HTML5 parser
>> should ignore the @profile attribute.
> 
> Not quite.  [...]

Right, it says: ]] User agents SHOULD ignore … [[ 
 
>> There quite a few similar issues. E.g. HTML4 supports image maps were
>> one uses <a> instead of <area> - HTML5 does not have this feature
>> (currently) - and I heard from Boris and Anne that they would be so
>> happy to remove that feature from their respective browsers. @summary,
>> @longdesc etc belongs to the same set of issues.
>> 
>> So the concrete problem is the parser - that HTML5 blesses removal of
>> features that are important to handle HTML4 documents.
> 
> The whole reason we remove  these sorts of things is because they
> *aren't* important for HTML4 documents.

But we do not define HTML4. We define HTML5. ;-) And thus: not 
everything that (according to a counting of its use) "aren't important 
for HTML4 documents", have been removed in HTML5.

In a situation where the mantra is that elements are better than 
attributes, then it seems meaningless to remove the possibility to use 
<a> instead of <area>.

>  When something is undesirable
> and only an insignificant number of pages use it, it's fairly safe to
> remove.  If a significant number of pages depended on it, it would be
> useless to remove it from the spec, as browsers would still have to
> implement it to handle existing content.

This way "we" also remove things, de facto, from HTML4. When will HTML5 
become a standard? No one knows. In the mean time, what should one do? 
No one will strive to implement HTML4 better this way.
 
>>> Do you believe in ever obsoleting specs? Does your concern about
>>> HTML4 extend to HTML 2.0? If not, why not?
>> 
>> Except for the very doctypes themselves of those specs, are there
>> things in HTML32 and HTML2 that did not make it to HTML4?
> 
> Yes.  For example, just looking at the list of specified elements, you
> can see that <xmp> and <listing> were present in HTML2 but not in
> HTML4.01.  There are several more elements that still officially exist
> but have no effect, such as <nextid>, such that if any documents *did*
> depend on their functionality, they would be broken by a UA
> implementing the spec.

OK. Hopefully HTML4 replace their functionality with better things. 
That is not the case w.r.t. <area>.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 01:24:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:14 UTC