- From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:40:01 -0400
- To: "'Boris Zbarsky'" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
Please keep in mind, this is a combination of feedback from folks in general. Nothing specific. The overall idea is that people want a simplified version of HTML, that does not require CSS, with a low barrier to entry. They want it to be considered conforming and valid by the current HTML spec. iframe would only be a winner of a solution if DOCTYPE worked the way most HTML authors think it works, and even then, only one person has actually mentioned being able to embed "older style HTML" in new HTML. Overall, casual HTML authors just *despise* CSS. While I disagree with that particular feeling (I think CSS' advantages far outweigh the learning curve), and while I think that anyone hand authoring HTML should learn to do it right, I can definitely understand why there are a lot of people who are really upset at the increasing complexity of HTML, starting with version 4. J.Ja -----Original Message----- From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:22 PM To: Justin James Cc: public-html@w3.org Subject: Re: A suggestion from the public On 10/27/09 4:51 PM, Justin James wrote: > iframe might be a workable solution, if there was a reliable way to signal > to a browser to use an older HTML spec, not just the quirks/standards mode > dichotomy. I'm not sure I follow. Which elements would you like treated by browsers differently than the HTML5 spec says they should be treated, and what are the differences? -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 00:41:41 UTC