W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2005

Re: [Structure Module] Renaming the <html> element to more semantic name

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@tigerstaden.no>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:39:35 +0100
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, XHTML-Liste <www-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <op.s1eqf9k416f2qb@quark.hv1alan>

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:52:28 +0100, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote:

> Spelled words are empty and the element "document" has not more sense  
> than element "html" (specifically after 15 years of history by a social  
> group).

So, basically, the <html> element should stay for historical reasons?  
Isn't XHTML 2.0 supposed to be breaking most of this history and not be  
backward-compatible anyway? Why does the 15 years of history with <html>  
apply to XHTML 2.0 if none of the other (excuse my language) rubbish from  
older HTML specifications doesn't?

Asbjørn Ulsberg     -=|=-    http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2005 09:38:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:12 UTC