- From: Henrik Dvergsdal <henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:22:05 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
OK, it looks like the people behind this proposal also agree on the question of version information. So just to make sure I get this right: To me it looks like you are proposing the following strategy: 1. We start with HTML5 in its current state. 2. We add all all that's necessary to define "exactly how to handle the web as it is today" (Hunt). This means all components that are being used in current web pages, including, for instance, elements like <blink>, <blackface> and <marquee> and all the "undocumented, unspecified, frozen set of bugs" (Hickson) that people rely on out there. 3. We organize the standard into sets of "recommended", "right" components, and sets of forbidden, "wrong" components: This "effectively means that we discourage people from using the elements (it's forbidden, the elements don't event exist as far as authors are concerned), but "require" user agents to support them so they don't lose market share, render the web and such" (van Kesteren, offlist). 4. We then freeze the standard and let evolve in two ways only: (1) by bug fixing and (2) by incorporating new components once they actually being used - "we cannot afford to change behavior, nor can we afford to remove features from browsers once they are used" (Hickson). This means that if, for instance, Microsoft implements some new element in IE and people start using it, it will automatically be included in the standard and all the others will have to follow. Am I right? -- Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 09:22:46 UTC