W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

RE: Note in HTML4 spec about html5?

From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 01:03:20 +0000
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
CC: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Jace Voracek <jacevoracek@me.com>, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A3E2FE5C4@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
A note would be useful information and would show W3C isn't blind to the changes that have happened in Browsers in the past decade.  Otherwise, it seems we're sticking our heads in the sand.  It's taking far too long to get to a new REC to just ignore the uptake of html5.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis [mailto:bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:23 PM
>To: John Foliot
>Cc: Jirka Kosek; Carr, Wayne; Charles McCathieNevile; Jace Voracek; David
>Carlisle; public-html@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Note in HTML4 spec about html5?
>
>On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:38 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
>> Quoting Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> More importantly, the HTML5 work is what is relevant to implementors.
>>>
>>
>> While this may very well be the case, implementors are not the only
>> audience/consumers of HTML, or of the HTML4 and XHTML1
>Recommendations.
>>
>> Not every web developer/author gets to implement the latest and
>> greatest that HTML5 purports to offer: often they are held back by
>> corporate policy
>> (etc.) and are restricted to using only HTML4 and/or XHTML1 (which are
>> finalized Recommendations). Often times these corporate restrictions
>> are "enforced" by legal mandates (etc.), misguided as that may seem to some.
>>
>> Not every web project is the next
>> twitter/facebook/instagram/mailchimp/Oooh-shiny-new-distracting-and-ed
>> gy
>> project.
>>
>> They call them Standards for a reason.
>
>Sorry for being unclear, by "implementors" I meant to include web
>developers/authors as people, not exclude them.
>
>Including a link to the latest work on XHTML did not interfere with people trying
>to meet arbitrary external requirements in 1999, and including a link to the latest
>work on HTML will not interfere with them in 2012. It will help such people
>produce documents/software that interoperable with other documents/software
>if they take notice of the latest work as well as the spec to which they are
>required to conform.
>
>Web developers are have to conform to HTML4/XHTML1 are not uncommon.
>Web developers who can simply markup according to HTML4/XHTML2 ignoring
>the reality of what got implemented in the subsequent dozen years are very rare.
>Web developers who use JS but restrict themselves to DOM APIs as standardized
>circa 1999 are rarer still. Even they may be interested in the technological
>developments of the subsequent decade.
>
>--
>Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 01:03:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:47 GMT