W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: HTML5 script start tag should select appropriate content model according to src

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:17:11 +0200 (CEST)
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <tkrat.c998060f76b1e71c@greytower.net>

On 25 Apr, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> Tina Holmboe wrote:
>> I do /not/ expect the W3C to simply take aboard a document created by
>> an industry group and in rather dire need of revision. It's not good
>> enough.
> 
> Why isn't it good enough?  Could you be a little more specific about 
> what is wrong with it?

  More specific? Very well.

   * Presentational elements are kept. This includes the HR element,
     SMALL, B, and I. This is 2007; NONE of them should be kept.

   * Presentational elements are ADDED. M, anyone? This is the realm of
     CSS; discard.

   * Elements that are in the past used for presentation are changed
     to have semantic meaning - B and I specifically. This /breaks/
     current documents. Don't do that. Toss B and I out once and for
     all.

   * Elements with previously defined semantics have been changed, such
     as CITE: "The cite element represents a citation: the source, or
     reference, for a quote or statement made in the document." - WHERE
     in the document? Specify much, much sharper.
     
   * Elements with no particular structural purpose are added, such as
     CANVAS, VIDEO and AUDIO. See EMBED. What do we need ANY of these
     when we can use DIV and OBJECT for the same purpose? Toss out.

   * Several ideas added which MAY be good - such as PROGRESS - lack
     maturity as it is today. Specify far better, and remove the bits on
     it being 'indeterminate'.

   * Elements from HTML 4 which have known accessibility issues, such as
     IFRAME, are kept. Elements that were never IN HTML - such as EMBED
     - are included in the spec! Get rid of both.

   * Elements which DO contain semantics - even if rarely used - are
     being tossed out, such as ACRONYM. Why did you remove that? Because
     some people don't think it important to differ between that and
     ABBR? Well, put it back in, because it IS important. Some of us do
     actually think semantics matter.

   * Elements that are almost never seen in the wild ARE kept, such as
     KBD. Keep, that's fine, but then there is NO need to remove
     ACRONYM.

   * The entire specification talks about "applications"; we need a
     *markup* language, not mix the metaphors. If an application
     language is needed, XUL and others exist and should be kept
     carefully away from the document/data markup.

   * Some elements are defined very, VERY loosely - such as 'ASIDE'.
     What does " ... content that is tangentially related to the content
     around the aside element ... " mean? 'Around' how? How many lines?
     Same section? Several sections? Specify better, or remove.

   * FONT. Need I say more? Editors are to use it, browsers are to
     ignore it? Get rid of it.

   * Attributes are added which have dubious value, such as
     oncontextmenu and ping. No, users don't want authors to fiddle with
     context menus or ping anything. Just /keep that out/.

   * Attributes are not removed which should be - target specifically.
     No, we don't need targets. This is a markup language, not something
     which define windows to be opened. Take the target attribute out.

   * Oh, and /please/ separate the *markup specification* from the bits
     and pieces of how to communicate over Bluetooth and irDA ... what
     has the content of 6.3 to do with HTML? Take it apart; it's too
     large - 372,900 bytes of markup, DOM, scripting, and who knows what
     in ONE document that should specify the markup alone is far too
     much.




>> At this point in time I suggest we start with 4.01 Strict,
> 
> HTML 4.01 is extremely poorly defined, it is not interoperably 
> implemented and does not reflect reality.  Why would it be a better 
> start than HTML5?

  This might be because not all of us agree that HTML 4.01 *IS* poorly
  defined. Frankly I consider it less poorly defined than WA1.




> Do you realise how much time we would waste by starting with HTML4 and 
> removing/replacing with features from HTML5, just to end up with a
> spec equivalent to the HTML5 spec we have now?  A much better

  No. We are wasting time by discussing WA1 when we could improve on
  HTML 4.01 instead.

  Perhaps we should create a user-driven group that can take on the task
  of cleaning up HTML 4, and present that as an alternative. The HTMLWG
  would, I presume, give that equal consideration.
  
-- 
 -       Tina Holmboe                           Greytower Technologies
       tina@greytower.net                      http://www.greytower.net
        +46 708 557 905
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 16:17:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:09 GMT