W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2009

Re: Design Principles

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 20:13:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4A1C315A.70707@malform.no>
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 12.34:
> 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.

Tell me about that other HTML 4, please. I really wonder how one can say 
that HTML 4 is winning and mean that something that isn't in the HTML 4 
spec is winning.

>>>> 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

The high deployment of HTML that you talk about includes a lot of XHTML.

>  or its relevance to either my comments above or the discussion as a whole.

I just note that one can praise "HTML 4" outside the WG. But when "HTML 
4" is mentioned here, it is used as pretext for dismissing the argument.
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 18:17:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:47 UTC