Re: Proposal to Adopt HTML5

Geoffrey Sneddon schreef:
>> You're free to argue against this proposal on the grounds that the
>> step is too big. And I'm interested to learn about alternative
>> ways to move forward.
>
> I'm equally interested to hear about alternatives: plenty of people 
> have already quite clearly stated that starting from HTML 4.01 is near 
> unworkable, due to how vague it is, and nobody has put forward any 
> other possible starting point.

As this is the second time I hear someone say that no alternatives have 
been offered, I’d like to refer to my earlier message where I suggested 
two other approaches:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007JanMar/0085.html

I think both are based on the idea of cutting up the WHATWG’s specs a 
little, the first doing a quick review for patents and then copying over 
everything that’s not ‘dangerous’ and keeping the remainder in a 
separate ‘sandbox’ for more in-depth review; the second cutting up the 
spec in smaller ‘units’ that can be discussed and integrated into the 
specification one by one.

That said, I don’t have any particular objections against integrating 
the WHATWG’s specs as a whole. I only fear that with things like for 
example <video> already having proactively been added to the published 
specification draft, implementations even being made already, it will be 
hard for me to effectively argue that <object> should be used.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.