- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:24:28 +0300
- To: public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:38 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote: > Not every web developer/author gets to implement the latest and greatest > that HTML5 purports to offer: often they are held back by corporate policy > (etc.) and are restricted to using only HTML4 and/or XHTML1 (which are > finalized Recommendations). Often times these corporate restrictions are > "enforced" by legal mandates (etc.), misguided as that may seem to some. Maybe, but it still makes sense to point to HTML5. On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote: > Sure, if there is some bug in HTML4 spec that should be addressed in > erratum. HTML4 is so fundamentally erroneous that it doesn't make sense to maintain errata. It does make sense to add a pointer to HTML5, though. (As an example of a fundamental error, HTML4 is a work of fiction when it comes to layering on top of SGML.) I object to objections to adding a notice about HTML5 to the HTML4 spec pages. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 10:24:57 UTC