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

Re: Moving on

From: Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 13:24:16 +0100
Message-ID: <463F1A70.607@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
To: www-html@w3.org, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Isn't that a very different question, Sam ?

There are (at least) two very different issues which we
as a group need to address :  (1) which elements and
attributes should appear in HTML 5 (and what are their
semantics), and (2) what should be the behaviour of
a user agent when presented with a putative HTML 5
document that contains elements and/or attributes
that do not appear in the HTML 5 specification.

Your version of the question is closer to (2),
whereas I was seeking to clarify (1) first.  Would
you agree that we do not need to agree an answer
to (2) at this stage, and (supplementary) that it
is not currently within our remit to define the
behaviour of an HTML 5 validator ?

** Phil.
--------
Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> Philip & Le Khanh wrote:
>>
>> 1) Do you agree that HTML 5 should include all the elements
>>    and attributes currently allowed in HTML 4.01 Strict ?
> 
> An alternative phrasing which will likely get quite different results:
> 
> 1) Do you believe that HTML 5 conformance checkers should flag as
>    an error commonly used tags which are widely supported and pose
>    no interoperability issues?
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 12:24:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:10 GMT