Re: Support Existing Content

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> Will you agree that the spec defines a narrower (and perhaps cleaner)  
> language for documents than "everything on the web ever", even if you  
> disagree with some of the details of what is allowed?

Of course (for example, it omits "marquee").  Unfortunately
that same spec. defines a wider (and distinctly dirtier)
language for documents than HTML 4.01 Strict, and /that/
is the issue with which I take exception.  The charter
calls for "A language evolved from HTML4 for describing
the semantics of documents and applications on the World
Wide Web".  The language as proposed by the WHATWG is
more closely evolved from HTML 3.2, pays lip service
to "describing the semantics", and places far too
much emphasis on "describing the processing of
extant documents and applications ...".

Philip Taylor

Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 17:22:26 UTC