Re: HTML 4.02

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:44:09 +0100, Toby Inkster <> wrote:

Douglas Crockfor has called for HTML 4.2 that's "stable and reliable" and  
"smallest possible standard, rather than the largest possible standard": (I'm linking to some mirror,  
because Yahoo seems to have lost the original post).

> The HTML 4.02 specification is here:

> What do people think?

I've met several developers who presume that HTML 5 is all about canvas,  
video and other "features IE won't implement in 10 years" and thus it's  
not worth their attention. I think having specification that only includes  
features that work in all currently used browsers (including IE6) would  
help in such cases.

That however depends on definition of "works". Should it be "doesn't break  
badly" or "browser implements it [partially | fully]"? e.g. does <section>  
"work" in IE6? Does Ruby "work" in Opera?

13 lines is not enough for a specification. I think it would have to be  
HTML 5 specification with parts removed or at least HTML 4 text with new  
features added, so that you'd have specification of language as a whole  
that defines how different parts interact.

I'm not sure whether subset you've chosen is the best (and probably exact  
subset is going to be hard to agree on...)

Why add target, but not <ol start>? Why not relax content model of <form>  
(so you could insert <input type=hidden> children)?

There are other features that work today and could be included, e.g.  
<input autocomplete>, <meta charset> and APIs like innerHTML.

Does anyone use <script implements>? Is it actually supported by browsers  
(i.e. not simply ignored in every case)?

regards, Kornel Lesinski

Received on Sunday, 23 August 2009 20:58:20 UTC