Re: Choosing name for XML serialization (Was: Re: HTML5 differences from HTML4 editor's draft (XHTML5 and XHTML2))

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:40:56 +0200, Mark Birbeck <>  
> 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

Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 08:46:34 UTC