- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 04:38:11 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > > Another quote from the same page: "imperative that HTML be extended in a > backwards-compatible way". > > So HTML 4 is winning. And HTML 5 has to be backwards-compatible. > > It really sounds from this as if it is very important to be compatible > with HTML 4. No, being backwards compatible with the HTML4 spec is worthless. It's being backwards compatible with legacy content and implementations that matters (and that has been a cornerstone of the HTML5 effort). > It really sounds as if mentioning HTML 4 should have had close to high > weight. (Except that the air we are breathing is called HTML 4 so we > really should have something more unobvious to say.) > > Perhaps you really meant that the DOM is winning? That "text/html" is > winning? However, that sounded so boring ... Not sure what you mean. I meant that HTML has a high deployment rate today (in terms of user agents and content) compared to Flash and Silverlight, and that the HTML5 work is intended to continue this trend. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 04:38:47 UTC