- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 08:49:54 +0200
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:34:13 +0200, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: > But the content using them is written in older (<5) versions of HTML, so > why is that relevant (unless you want 100% backwards compatibility, in > which case you should also reintroduce things that have already been > dropped, like TT, BIG, STRIKE, S and U). Treat them as unrecognised > elements, rather than ratifying their use for yet another standards > round... This proposal has the problem David Baron indicated on this list yesterday. Namely that HTML5 documents will be written before HTML5 is done and that when it's not correctly implemented in the market leader UA other UAs will have to support those elements anyway when used. Breaking backwards compatibility is something for a new format, which we're not chartered to do. The other reason I think this proposal is not a good idea is that it needlessly complicates browsers. Authors will have conformance checkers and browser developers tools that will hint them at the right solution. No need to change the rendering from previous versions of HTML. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 06:50:08 UTC