- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:45:39 +0300
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Aug 31, 2009, at 13:38, Julian Reschke wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: >> ... >> It is pointless to provide semantics of elements (or other >> features) that are obsolete other than the semantics that form the >> element's (or the feature's) normative user-agent conformance >> criteria, since the only effect of such semantics is in deciding >> whether the element (or feature) is being used correctly, and >> obsolete elements (and features) can never be used correctly, since >> they are obsolete and must never be used at all. >> ... > > That's fine with me. But in that case, the spec doesn't describe > previous versions sufficiently, and the media type registration > should continue to also reference previous specifications. It seems to me that there's a difference of underlying premises here. Premise 1: HTML5 obsoletes HTML 2.0, 3.2 and 4.01 and XHTML 1.x. New authoring must use the latest level of the language. Premise 2: HTML 2.0, 3.2, 4.01 and 5 and XHTML 1.x are all Recommended. It is appropriate to author new pages using older levels of the language. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 10:57:42 UTC