- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:04:19 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Hi Ian, On Apr 26, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > I'm done reviewing, and I give it a thumbs up. > > http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ProposedDesignPrinciples Thanks for the quick review! > Specifically, I have the following editorial suggestions: > > * I would recommend moving the links to the definitions of "backwards > compatible" and "forwards compatible" to the end of the section, > because > they don't seem to make anything clearer (in particular, the terms > aren't > used, so it's not like they're helping the reader understand the > section). Done. > * To lessen the confusion of the "Don't Break The Web" entry, I > recommend > removing "New versions of HTML must not break significant numbers > of Web > pages", and adjusting the rest of the text to not use the word > "break". > Maybe the entire thing should be renamed to not say "break". > Basically we > want to be saying that a browser that implements our spec (and > other specs > that supplement it, like CSS or DOM Core, but not anything else) will > render existing content the same way as legacy browsers. I renamed this principle to "Support Existing Content". Here is the new text: Support Existing Content SupportExistingContent: Browsers implementing the new version of HTML should still be able to handle existing content. Ideally, it should be possible to process web documents and applications via an HTML5 implementation even if they were authored against older implementations and do not specifically request HTML5 processing. All changes and additions could cause some content to malfunction at least in theory, but this will vary in degree. We need to judge whether the value of the change is worth the cost. Cross-browser content on the public Web should be given the most weight. > I would drop all three Disputed Principles. I'll leave them in for now, but I'm happy to do this after the review period if the group generally agrees. Does anyone want to advocate for any specific position on the disputed principles? Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 07:04:31 UTC