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

The HTML 4.01 spec says "Deprecated elements may become obsolete in
future versions of HTML." [1] and "An obsolete element ... is one for
which there is no guarantee of support by a user agent." [2]

Will there ever come a day when nonconforming elements from old HTML
versions are no longer guaranteed to be supported by conforming user
agents? My guess is "no" if we want HTML written in 1996 to be
readable in 2096, right?  If so, then "nonconforming" does not mean
"deprecated", really.

At first, it seems odd to say that an element like <tt> or <strike>
prevents a document from being "conforming HTML5", yet "conforming
HTML5 user agents" must support it.  The note at
clarifies, but it still feels to me like we should be splitting the
specification into two parts (i.e. one smaller spec for authors, one
much larger set for all the user agent requirements).  I know some
people have said that the majority of web authors don't go to the
specs, but what about those that do?



On 6/25/07, Martijn <> wrote:
> 2007/6/25, scott lewis <>:
> > HTML5 consumers will be required to recognize @style and handle it in
> > a manner consistent with how it is handled today. The change is that
> > producers of conforming HTML5 will be prevented from using it. All
> > existing documents will continue to be rendered as they are now --
> > that is why HTML5 is compatible with legacy content.
> So not conforming is the same as what deprecated is in html4?
> Regards,
> Martijn

Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 18:49:34 UTC