- From: Sam Kuper <sam.kuper@uclmail.net>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:38:22 +0000
- To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4126b3450810310738m646eab4eqccc0f7f9ac52c6c7@mail.gmail.com>
2008/10/31 Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> > > Sam Kuper wrote: > >> 2008/10/31 Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk > > [snip] >> >> Well, the second option there was never conformant, so it doesn't make >> sense to mark it as deprecated. The first option wasn't advised or, really, >> mentioned at all in HTML 4.x, so it doesn't make sense to mark that >> deprecated either (there's nothing to mark). > > I don't follow your logical here, Sam. For something to be marked deprecated in a spec, it has to have been recommended in a previous spec; otherwise, there's nothing to mark as deprecated. Neither <q>"(Quote)"</q> nor "<q>(Quote)</q>" or suchlike have been recommended in previous HTML specs, AFAIK, and therefore (for the reason given in the previous sentence) cannot be marked deprecated in HTML 5. > Please could you read those proposals? >> > > I have, Sam, otherwise I would not feel in > a position to respond. Then you haven't understood them. My apologies; I realise this may be my fault rather than yours (which is why I'm willing to continue corresponding on the topic). > and the legacy mode of operation then >> defined to produce optimal results for whichever >> group predominates. >> Leaving the rest to render wrongly, presumably. > > Exactly. I don't think that would be acceptable. It would represent a very poor approach to quality control on the part of the W3C. > I sure wouldn't be happy to have a "legacy" mode implemented in browsers >> which would potentially apply an inappropriate rendering algorithm to 49% of >> the existing Web. > > That is exactly the situation with the current generation > of browsers; Er, not wrt. <q>, it isn't. Regards, Sam > I genuinely fail to see why a new generation > go out of its way to improve on current behaviour for > legacy documents. This is, as far as I can tell, a general assertion not limited to <q>. Here's why, in a general sense, it may be worth improving on current behaviour. Current behaviour may be: - inconsistent; - non-conformant; - inadequate. A world in which Web UAs implement specs consistently, conformantly, and otherwise adequately would be a world in which authoring and consuming Web documents and services is predictable and, as a result, is probably quicker and easier than it would be in a world in which Web UAs implement specs inconsistently, non-conformantly or otherwise inadequately. Regards, Sam
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 14:38:57 UTC