- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 05:39:13 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Jan 29, 2009, at 3:04 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > > > It seems there is a clear precedent for dropping elements and > > attributes from subsequent revisions of HTML. I don't see why HTML 5 > > should be treated any differently in this respect. > > Because HTML5 intends to be the definition of the "text/html" media > type, which is an already deployed language. > > The anchor name attribute is heavily used and present in every single > book and tutorial on writing HTML that has been printed in the past 18 > years. It is a permanent fixture of the language and should be defined > by the spec even if it is deprecated. Indeed, and as you discovered, it is in fact still defined. Even <xmp>, <listing>, and <plaintext> are still defined in HTML5. (The latter three only have their parsing defined so far, but rendering rules will be forthcoming in the rendering section.) However, that doesn't mean they should still be conforming in new documents. The point of conformance is to provide a way to perform quality assurance on documents to verify that they are the best they could be according to the current state of the art. Leaving <font>, bgcolor="", align="" and so forth as conforming features does authors a disservice. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 05:39:51 UTC