W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2007

[whatwg] My case for Ruby-elements

From: Keryx Web <webmaster@keryx.se>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:39:54 +0200
Message-ID: <46C0430A.6020707@keryx.se>
Ian Hickson skrev:
> Yes, I have in fact already begun looking at exactly what the parsing and 
> semantic requirements for <ruby> will have to be. It should be added to 
> the spec in the coming weeks.
> 


May I add that it might be worthwhile to announce this in some 
noticeable way. Right not HTML5 is taking quite a lot of bad heat, with 
statements such as "But I really don?t see where HTML5 is better enough" 
(compared to HTML 4 at 
http://www.molly.com/2007/08/11/dear-w3c-dear-wasp/ in the comment by 
Keith Bowes).

Simple logic:

A. There is no ruby in XHTML 1.0 and no ruby in HTML 4.

B. XHTML 1.1 requires an XML-mime type. Which won't be supported by MSIE 
in any reasonable time frame.

ERGO: The only allowed version of HTML that may be sent to a browser 
with the text/html MIME-type will be HTML 5. That's a huge benefit to 
say the least!


Lars Gunther
Received on Monday, 13 August 2007 04:39:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:36 UTC