- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:42:23 +0200
- To: "Philip Taylor" <philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:30:35 +0200, Philip Taylor <philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Philip TAYLOR wrote: >> many of us would undoubtedly argue that the "stricter syntax rules" >> of XML are positively beneficial and that HTML5 bends over backwards >> (far too far, IMHO) to pander to the inabilities and inadequacies of >> the technologically illiterate. > > Why should we not cater for such people, when we do cater for people > with physical inabilities? Please let's not go here again. HTML 5 *does* allow people to write old-school HTML tag soup, and provides a way to know what will happen to it in a good HTML5-capable browser. And I suspect it will continue to do so, since there are number of strong advocates for it... The issue of whether the spec should say "HTML good, XML bad" is seperate from whether it should keep doing this - and while one opinion was expressed that we go too far in doing so, I haven't seen any real support for changing that. The issue in question is probably divisive enough. Let's try not to swallow the flamebait... cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk chaals@opera.com Catch up: Speed Dial http://opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 16:42:27 UTC