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

Re: HTML 5 and XHTML 2 combined

From: Molte <molte93@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:45:13 +0100
Message-ID: <9aa897060901200845k4e64c184tecc87764ce9432e5@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Brett Patterson" <inspiron.pattersonb@gmail.com>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Indeed they should.

The problem just might be, that if the browser vendors do not like the
language they can simply just avoid supporting it (just like going on a
strike). And then what idea is there of a standard that is not supported or

It's just a question about who has the power to decide the future of the
Web. The browser vendors? the coders/developers? "us"? or just everyone in

2009/1/20 Brett Patterson <inspiron.pattersonb@gmail.com>

> 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 16:45:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:21 UTC