Re: Support Existing Content (was: Proposed Design Principles review)

On 30 Apr, David Hyatt wrote:

> I would like the HTML standard to document the reality of the Web,  
> not some idealized imaginary version of the Web.  What good is a  

  Then you confirm that you would like the HTML standard to document
  poor quality code, bad practice, and lacking accessibility?

  THAT is the reality of the Web today. Personally I'd like to see the
  worst mistakes taken out.

> standard that - if implemented by itself - results only in a toy  
> browser that can't render the real Web?  How is that standard helpful  
> to anyone?

  Who - and yes, please refer me to the exact spot - said that the end
  result should be a specification which could only be rendered in a
  browser *which can't render anything else*?

  Or are you seriously telling me that IF we create a HTML 5 which
  contain only structural elements, no presentational tags, is backwards
  compatible (except for, yes, presentational tags. It's 2007), and add
  richer semantics, then the browsers will suddenly and overnight stop
  implementing HTML 4.01 complete with the current level of error

>>   I'm afraid that if we /do/ make HTML 5 what the browser vendors are
>>   willing, able, and eager to implement then we'll not get anything
>>   /other/ than what they want.
> What browser vendors want is usually what Web site authors are  
> telling us that they want.

  Great. When do you guys implement proper kerning? We've screamed for
  that since 1996. It has nothing to do with the markup, but it has alot
  to do with readability.

  Granted, I have no idea of Safari does - version 2.0.4 doesn't seem to
  - If so, cheers! If not, have you really listened to authors? I have.

> If enough content authors want a feature, then clearly it would be of  
> interest to browser vendors as well.  I'm not sure why you are  
> singling out browser vendors as a unique audience.  We have no  

  It is far more complicated than how you make it sound. On occation
  browser vendors add things that may not *be* a good idea, regardless
  of who asks for it.

  Which is why very careful consideration of ideas and features /before/
  implementation is a good idea. When something has been implemented,
  it's not all that easy to remove it again.

> interest in adding features that content authors wouldn't use.  We'd  
> just be bloating our products for no reason if we did that.

  My pet fear is that a feature which, right now, is in the WA1 but
  later deemed as counter-productive to the idea of a markup language is
  removed ... well, it won't be removed from your product.

  The bloat I'll not comment on.

 -       Tina Holmboe                           Greytower Technologies            
        +46 708 557 905

Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 22:59:58 UTC