W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Proposal to Adopt HTML5

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:49:14 +0900
Message-ID: <461CD94A.7070809@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
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:


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.


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.

Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 12:50:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:18 UTC