W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: HTML 5 and XHTML 2 combined

From: Brett Patterson <inspiron.pattersonb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:28:37 -0500
Message-ID: <754508830901200528v33ec9234m70919ace355c79b9@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-html@w3.org
Okay, long time posted in this subject. I see where Benjamin is heading with
his discussions, and I agree with him. Took me awhile to read and understand
his links. But, Olaf, why are browser vendors allowed to choose what is
right and wrong with HTML and XHTML, and coders are to play along, and the
working groups that build upon HTML and XHTML (work with it, fix it,
whatever) suppose to conform to browser vendor's goals? They should not be
allowed to tell working groups what should and should not be allowed! It is
not up to them. If it is, what is the purpose of the working groups? Are the
working groups composed only of browser vendors, or both designers/coders
and browser vendors? Vendors should be made to follow the standards and
codes, and ideas and goals of the working group, should they not?

--
Brett P.


On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:10 AM, <olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 06:50:18PM +0000, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote:
>
> > I am arguing that HTML 5 should stop carrying with it the baggage of
> > earlier, arguably poorly thought out, standards and should rather have
> > the courage to propose how things will be expressed /in the future/.
> > By definition, this will require browsers to parse (and process) HTML
> > 5 documents differently to how they parse and process documents
> > conforming to earlier standards (and, of course, how they parse and
> > process documents that lack a DOCTYPE directive and which therefore
> > cannot be safely assumed to conform to any standards whatsoever). By
> > so doing, HTML 5 could define the <IMG> element to be a container (in
> > HTML 5), even though it was not a container in previous
> > specifications.
>
> I think this is precisely what XHTML2 set out to do.
>
> HTML5 came up because browser vendors didn't agree this is the right
> way...
>
> How do you imagine this could be reconciled? If you hijack HTML5 to
> effectively become XHTML2, browser vendors will just again come up with
> something different conforming to *their* goals. (HTML4.5 or whatever.)
>
> -antrik-
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 13:29:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:15 GMT