Re: Cleaning House

On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:34:13 +0200, Patrick H. Lauke  
<> wrote:
> But the content using them is written in older (<5) versions of HTML, so  
> why is that relevant (unless you want 100% backwards compatibility, in  
> which case you should also reintroduce things that have already been  
> dropped, like TT, BIG, STRIKE, S and U). Treat them as unrecognised  
> elements, rather than ratifying their use for yet another standards  
> round...

This proposal has the problem David Baron indicated on this list  
yesterday. Namely that HTML5 documents will be written before HTML5 is  
done and that when it's not correctly implemented in the market leader UA  
other UAs will have to support those elements anyway when used. Breaking  
backwards compatibility is something for a new format, which we're not  
chartered to do.

The other reason I think this proposal is not a good idea is that it  
needlessly complicates browsers. Authors will have conformance checkers  
and browser developers tools that will hint them at the right solution. No  
need to change the rendering from previous versions of HTML.

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 06:50:10 UTC