RE: Why bother? (was Re: The Semantic Debate)

Jonas Sicking wrote:
> If you want to spec something that isn't just a continuation of HTML4,
> feel free. Go forth and create something great. But this is not the
> WG[*] to do it. The folks over at the XHTML2 WG are trying just that,
> maybe that's the group you should join.

<sarcasm>then why are you giving it a whole new number (HTML5)?  I earlier
suggested that it should be referenced HTML4.7 in honor of that browser to
end all browsers - Netscape 4.7...</sarcasm>

> Agreed, and the more we depart from current practices the more
> compelling the reasons need to be. This WG is trying to walk down the
> path of "create the highest value possible, while limit ourselves to
> the constraints of current practices". 

Are you suggesting then that this not also be a good time to try and improve
author habits? 
That it's perfectly OK to continue to foster and support bad author habits,
just because? 
That the goals and concerns of content creators who care about things like
improved accessibility as well as improved functionality don't have a place
in this discussion? 
And you expect this to gain traction how?  

If all you want to do is maintain the status quo (your term was "current
practices"), then what exactly is the point of the exercise?  The
accessibility advocates in this discussion are trying to create "the highest
value possible" too, or does that not count?

> But it won't be in
> this WG, and most likely not in a W3C WG at all.
> [*]This is my understanding of the goal this WG was started with, and
> the reason that I joined it. And I believe the charter supports that
> view. 

Right, but inherent in that charter, and the desire to bring WHAT WG into
the W3C fold is to improve and enhance HTML for everyone... Not just lazy
content authors who care not about the benefits that may be brought to the
language.  If you need and want to continue to develop crud, stay with HTML
4.1.  But to try and improve only part of HTML, whilst ignoring what others
are asking for or saying is short-sighted and will probably never get
mainstream adoption either.


Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 18:59:46 UTC