Re: Support Existing Content (was: Proposed Design Principles review)

Tina Holmboe wrote:
> On 30 Apr, David Hyatt wrote:
>> I would like the HTML standard to document the reality of the Web,  
>> not some idealized imaginary version of the Web.  What good is a  
>   Then you confirm that you would like the HTML standard to document
>   poor quality code, bad practice, and lacking accessibility?

Documenting how browsers must handle HTML, regardless of whether the 
HTML is conforming or not, does not endorse the use of non-conforming 
markup by authors.

>   THAT is the reality of the Web today. Personally I'd like to see the
>   worst mistakes taken out.

We cannot undo the mistakes of the past, ignoring them doesn't make them 
go away, and removing documented features from a spec does not remove a 
browser's requirement to support them.

Regardless of whether some feature is good or bad, if browsers are 
required to support it in order to be compatible with the web, it is 
absolutely essential that we document and standardise it in a way that 
can achieve interoperability without breaking the web.

> My pet fear is that a feature which, right now, is in the WA1 but 
> later deemed as counter-productive to the idea of a markup language is 
> removed ... well, it won't be removed from your product.

It would help if you would cite specific features that you consider 
counter-productive to your abstract notion of what constitutes a markup 
language, and clearly explain, with technical arguments, why?

Lachlan Hunt

Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 10:21:02 UTC