- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:16:10 +0200
- To: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Smylers, Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:54:27 +0100: > I definitely agree with that. Thinking about it in those terms, even 1-2 > years sounds like too long. > > If ceasing to recommend HTML4.01 is the priority, then it makes sense to > publish as soon as HTML5 would make a better recommendation than > HTML4.01. In which case, it would make sense for the publication > criteria be phrased in terms of that, and not mention tests and interop > at all. Is that possible? > > Indications that HTML5 is not 'better' than HTML4.01 in some areas could > be things like: > > * For feature X implementers still need to refer to HTML4.01 rather than > HTML5 to produce useful software. > > * For feature Y authors still need to refer to HTML4.01 rather than > HTML5 for a useful explanation of the feature. > > * Feature Z in HTML5 is a change from HTML4.01 (or wasn't in it at all) > but it isn't stable and there's a chance that we'll want to revert to > the HTML4.01 behaviour (or remove the feature). > > In the absence of any cases along those lines, HTML5 would be > unambiguously an improvement on HTML4.01, so, however bad HTML5 is, it > would make sense to start recommending it instead of HTML4.01. > > Could the working group instead work towards identifying if there are > any areas of the spec which statuses like X, Y, or Z above, and if found > then prioritize fixing (or eliminating) those, then declare it suitable > for publishing as a recommendation? +1 +1 +1 -- leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 13:16:44 UTC