- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:34:12 +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: > 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 HTML4? In the context of the interview, what is the difference between these two HTML4s? I don't understand the question. > > > 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. I don't understand what this means or its relevance to either my comments above or the discussion as a whole. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 10:34:52 UTC