- From: Preston L. Bannister <preston@bannister.us>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 08:08:02 -0700
- To: "Brad Fults" <bfults@gmail.com>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
- Message-ID: <7e91ba7e0704280808u380c4bf0h4c4a5f84ba3551a4@mail.gmail.com>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > I renamed this principle to "Support Existing Content". Here is the new text: > > 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. This re-statement is much improved over the prior, BTW. On 4/27/07, Brad Fults <bfults@gmail.com> wrote: > [snip] Third, the primary goal of this working group is the production of "a > language evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of documents > and applications on the World Wide Web."[2] That language, presumably > called "HTML 5", is to be the proper successor to HTML 4. > > To summarize: > > - There is *one* primary goal for this working group: the HTML 5 > specification document. > - The are *two* primary objectives in the WHAT WG's "HTML5" draft: > > 1. A specification of the parsing requirements *for browser vendors* > to render the content on the web today. > 2. A specification of a language evolved from HTML 4 with new language > features *for content authors* that relies on those parsing requirements. > > The success of this group requires a conspicuous separation between > these two objectives, one concerning only browser vendors and one > primarily concerning content authors. With the minor quibble that (1) should be parsing and behavior to render content on the web today - the distinction between (1) and (2) seems to be the point driving a lot of discussion. The aforementioned proposed design principle, "Support Existing > Content" applies wholly and solely to #1 on this list. This principle > is not debatable in the eyes of the WHAT WG and those who are > acquainted with the open future of the web. Any output of this working > group that breaks compatibility with the current content on the web > will be ignored by the web at large and pushed, through ignorance, > into obscurity. > As a guy writing web applications, my interest in an increment forward from HTML 4. In addition to the prose I do hope we can come up with a test suite, so that there is less chance of (mis-) interpretation of the spec, and differences between browser implementations. Given a through test suite, the problem of differing browser implementations should reduce radically with each successive generation of browsers and HTML. A well-crafted set of tests force us towards a single common interpretation of the spec.
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2007 15:08:04 UTC