- From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:37:32 +0100
- To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
I was actually in the process of fleshing out my original point to clarify I was merely refering to the subset - and repeating what I had been told in previous posts, but you got in there before me with the other class of browsers comment. On 30 Apr 2007, at 17:20, Murray Maloney wrote: > > At 04:49 PM 4/30/2007 +0100, Gareth Hay wrote: >> Isn't the whole idea of the, so-called HTML5, that the page will >> render according to the specification in all browsers? > > That is not a possibility unless I am missing something. > > Browsers -- by which I assume that you mean that class of browser > which is found on computer desktops -- are not all there is. > > There are also aural and tactile browsers. Not to mention wet-ware > browsers. > > I can read HTML. I can parse it. I can understand most of what is > intended by > non-interactive HTML pages. I am able to treat HTML as if it is a > continuum > from HTML 2.0 to what I may receive over HTTP at any moment. Is the > HTML 5 > spec intended to leave all non-desktop browsers in the dark? > > So, I may be alone -- consider this a cry in the dark -- but I > still don't think > that the browser should define HTML. That was the POV that was > pomulgated > by Mosaic and Netscape developers back in 1994. I didn't buy it > then and I > don't buy it now. HTML is more than what the browser guys say it is. > > Regards, > > Murray > > >
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 18:37:46 UTC