- From: <bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:02:25 +0100 (BST)
- To: public-html@w3.org
But HTML 4 is the only W3C Recommendation that can be regarded as current assuming you don't start from XHTML 1.0 Strict, which would be a better starting point. If you don't start from HTML 4 then you have to include the 30 or 40 elements that appeared in earlier versions of HTML and the 50 or 60 elements that appeared in non-standard versions. We will be here until 2100 if we rehash all that old history just because in 1991 some person produced a web page using one of those elements and it still exists on the Web. Tim put up a page in 1990 which included a whole set of elements that never appeared in any of the versions of HTML. Do we need to discuss those as well? Bob ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: toward W3C Working Draft: design principles? spec? other? (survey) From: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> Date: Mon, June 4, 2007 10:58 am To: "Henrik Dvergsdal" <henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no> "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:27:21 +0200, Henrik Dvergsdal <henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no> wrote: > Does this mean you think we should forget all about HTML4? Don't you > think that we should be able to state the reasons for changes vs. HTML4 > with use cases, research etc.? I don't think we should assume HTML4 is perfect. The legacy we have is HTML as practiced on the web, not HTML4. It probably make sense to analyse features in that light (apart from normally reviewing them). -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 18:02:34 UTC