W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2010

RE: Backward-compatibility of text/html media type (ACTION-334, ACTION-364)

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:38:13 -0800
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D736B6D@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
>  Is there an intention to have at least the vast majority of the older 
> content work and be considered conforming?

I don't want to make the vast majority of older *content*
"be considered conforming". I do think it's reasonable to expect
that previous older content which both *works* and *was conforming*
to *continue to be conforming*.

Put another way:
I think it's reasonable to make things that were previously
non-conforming ONLY if they didn't actually work, weren't 
weren't actually deployed, weren't actually implemented.

Extended DOCTYPES and head/@profile are examples of content
that is, in HTML5, non-conforming, but
  * WERE conforming to previously issued specs
  * actually work with current browsers
  * have been deployed
  * have actually been implemented.

The only things obsoleted with HTML 4 were things that didn't
meet these criteria.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 17:39:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:19 GMT