- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:46:20 +0200
- To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:40:56 +0200, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net> wrote: > Sure, but that's the easy bit. It's simply a decision about whether > deprecating something means that it should no longer be supported or > merely regarded as bad practice. You can take it both ways though; > whilst I recognise the motivation for indicating that user agents > should still support 'old' features, it's not a completely smooth > approach. As we all know, a big problem for authors is that they tend > to code HTML (and CSS) through trial and error, and the approach of > HTML 5 will continue the confusion relating to what is > browser-specific and what is in the spec. If all browsers are required to support the same set of features in what way will they be confused? > But anyway, what about the other side of the equation? What about > authors who use 'video' in a document, which finds its way to an older > browser? There is nothing that can be done here within the language--a > problem for both HTML 5 and XTML 2. HTML as designed is forwards compatible so that if you add elements that support fallback content that content will render in older browsers. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 08:46:34 UTC