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: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:26:17 +0100
To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>, www-html-request@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
Message-id: <op.s1ghp3n616f2qb@quark.hv1alan>

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:03:31 +0100, John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>  
wrote:

> Actually Asbjørn, I thought the very same thing too, but my current
> debate with the XHTML Editors regarding the @key attribute seems to
> indicate that what they say and what they do doesn't always correspond -
> they are quite happy to keep "rubbish" for un-substantiated "historical"
> reasons, even when provided with multiple reasons for not dong so:
> http://www.wats.ca/articles/access+keystill=accesskey/80

Yep, the @key attribute came to mind as well as I wrote it, and I support  
all opinions expressed by John Foliot in that article. I find it very  
strange to preserve this legacy in a new format like XHTML 2.0, when one  
of the major points with it is to indeed break backwards-compatibility to  
have a new, fresh and well-designed format.

If XHTML 2.0 can't be backwards-compatible for all elements, what's the  
point in being backwards-compatible in some? Will we have partial XHTML  
2.0 support for a long time? Is that the goal of the new format -- to be  
partially supported just by tweaking some parameters in the rendering  
engine of a browser?

No, a clean break means a clean break to me. XHTML 2.0 is our big  
opportunity to make that break, so please do it.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg     -=|=-    http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2005 08:26:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:04 GMT