- From: Matthew Ratzloff <matt@builtfromsource.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
- To: public-html@w3.org
On Wed, March 14, 2007 2:00 pm, Laurens Holst wrote: > Similarly, there are several things in XHTML2 that are not in 'HTML5' > but which I think are architecturally more sound and should be in there. Agreed. There are some things I love in HTML 5 (client-side storage, much of Web Forms 2, <progress>); some things that I can see liking (<header>--although it might confuse things on the server side, <footer>); some things I hate (<font>, predefined classes); some things I find unnecessary, superficial, or vaguely defined (<aside>, <article>, <samp>, <kbd>, link types); and at least one thing that could prove to be a complete annoyance (<contextmenu>). This isn't part of the charter, but I also feel like more should be done to bring HTML 5 closer in line with XHTML 2, so that HTML 5 stands on its own but also eases transition from HTML 4 to XHTML 2. This could impact XHTML 2's spec as well (for example, removing the need for its <img> tag, which is redundant given <object>). I know not everyone is a fan of XHTML 2 as it currently stands, but it has got a lot right (<nl>, for one). In any event, I think if the WHAT spec is brought into this working group (that is, if patent policy allows it), it should undergo a full review. The current timeline (at least for the initial working draft) just doesn't seem realistic. -Matt
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 22:53:25 UTC