Re: Formal Objection to Questions 1 and 2; Abstention on Question 3

Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
> Clarification of Objections:
>    * Reasons Why HTML 4.01 Strict Should Remain
>      the HTML WG's Foundation Document
> Since the first deliverable listed in the HTML WG's Charter clearly 
> states,
> <q
> cite="">
> * A language evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of 
>   documents and applications on the World Wide Web. This will 
>   be a complete specification, not a delta specification.
> </q>

Hmm.. come to think of it. It's quite a pity that that is what the 
charter says. Would have been better to say that the language should 
have been based on the markup that is currently used on the internet. 
Too bad we didn't think of that earlier.

Personally I'm much more interested in dealing with the HTML language 
that people use on the web today, not with the hypothetical language 
that is in the HTML4 spec.

FWIW, the WA1 doc is derived from the HTML4 spec, but I don't suppose 
that will make you feel any better..

/ Jonas

Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 09:30:14 UTC