Re: [Fwd: Re: toward W3C Working Draft: design principles? spec? other? (survey)]


The point about XHTML 1 rather than HTML 4 is that in W3C's terms the
current version of HTML is XHTML 1.0 and that HTML 4 is not a current

Starting there does not say you cannot look at legacy implementations. All
it says is that you assess the needs of that legacy markup relative to

I don't think it is just one page that contains incorrect or illegal
markup. There is still a large amount of hand-written HTML out there. The
number of end tags you come across as </lo> is quite high but that is no
goos reason to include them as an alternative to </ol> although it would
be relatively easy to do.


> wrote:
>> 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.
> Because?
> And if you were to start from XHTML 1 (which is clearly not going to be
> the case), how do you account for the charter requirement "taking into
> account legacy implementations"?
>> 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.
> One web page with one old element would not constitute "HTML as
> practiced 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?
> They also would not constitute HTML as practiced on the web.
>> Bob
>> ---------------------------- Original Message
>> ----------------------------
>> Subject: Re: toward W3C Working Draft: design principles? spec? other?
>> (survey)
>> From:    "Anne van Kesteren" <>
>> Date:    Mon, June 4, 2007 10:58 am
>> To:      "Henrik Dvergsdal" <>
>>          "HTML WG" <>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:27:21 +0200, Henrik Dvergsdal
>> <> 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).
> --
> Bill Mason
> Accessible Internet

Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2007 06:45:15 UTC