- From: <bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 07:45:00 +0100 (BST)
- To: "Bill Mason" <w3c@accessibleinter.net>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Bill, 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 Recommendation. 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 XHTML 1. 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. Bob > > bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk 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" <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). >> >> > > > -- > Bill Mason > Accessible Internet > w3c@accessibleinter.net > http://accessibleinter.net/ > >
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2007 06:45:15 UTC