Re: Proposal to Adopt HTML5

In my opinion "loose ends" doesn't go far enough. :)  I'd hesitate to  
even call HTML4 a specification.  It has many areas that basically  
only sketch out behavior rather than actually bothering to specify  
it.  Tables are a great example of this.


On Apr 10, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Henrik Dvergsdal wrote:

> On 10. apr. 2007, at 21.16, L. David Baron wrote:
>> On Tuesday 2007-04-10 20:38 +0200, Henrik Dvergsdal wrote:
>>> If we are to make a jump like this, I think it we should have a
>>> really strict delta document. One that we can trust contains all
>>> significant aspects of differences between the HTML4 and HTML5 specs
>>> at all times. This should not be just a wiki. I think the editor
>>> should be responsible for keeping it up to date as the proposal  
>>> evolves.
>> I don't think this makes sense.
>> One of the problems I hope this group will solve is that HTML4 is
>> frequently ambiguous and often lacks conformance requirements where
>> it should have them.  In other words, it frequently doesn't define
>> the things a spec ought to be defining.  Many parts of it are not
>> useful at any level deeper than as a list of requested features, and
>> I don't think it's useful, or worth anyone's time, to track
>> differences between a list of requested features and an actual
>> specification designed to lead to interoperable implementations.
> I simply disagree on this. I have used HTML as an author/developer  
> since its inception and I admit has some loose ends, but describing  
> (part of) it as being just a list of features is going a bit far.
> --
> Henrik

Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 21:25:19 UTC