- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 11:55:29 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson On 09-05-26 06.38: > 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). > So it was not the HTML 4 of the spec that was winning but another HTML 4? >> 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. > XHTML is also HTML. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 09:56:18 UTC