- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:47:15 -0700
- To: Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Roger Johansson <roger@456bereastreet.com>, HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
On Jun 23, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Philip & Le Khanh wrote: > > > > Dan Connolly wrote: > > > Speaking personally, my goal is that the specification we > > deliver is sufficient that new implementations based on it > > will interoperate with a critical mass of the deployed content > > on the web. Much (most?) of that content reflects > > poor authoring practices. These practices are very much > > relevant considerations for our design decisions. > > Dan, I think you are trying to hit two nails with one hammer. > > By all means let there be a specification for /browsers/ that > can handle the majority of extant content : but let that > specification not influence the design of HTML 5, which I > (for one) see as the primary task with which this group is > concerned. To put it another way, let the specification > for HTML 5 inform the specification for browsers; but > /please/ do in any way allow the specification for browsers > to inform the specification for HTML 5. If I understand your proposal correctly, it is to have a specification for what browsers should implement, and then a separate real HTML5 that is completely uninformed by the browser specification. It seems to me, then, that this second specification would be an excercise in pointlessness, since by design browsers would not support it, and therefore content would have no reason to follow it. > Or to put it more simply, we must not allow the tail to wag the dog. The way I think of it, the living, existing World Wide Web is the dog and written specs about how it should work are the tail. I imagine you may be thinking of it the other way around. Regards, Maciej
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2007 23:47:30 UTC