W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2008

[whatwg] ---

From: Pentasis <pentasis@lavabit.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:49:30 +0200
Message-ID: <BB71B7BDAB2248DD903605906ECF5B5A@Sanktum01>
>> Who ever said that the standards are here for browsers?????????
>
> That's the whoe point of standards: to ensure interoperability between
> the laters.
>
>
>> HTML is a markup language that is meant to describe how content is to be
>> "tagged" so it can be retrieved based on markup.
>> This has absolutely nothing, and I mean NOTHING to do with browsers,
>> screenreaders, bots, or even humans as far as I am concerned.
>
> HTML still needs to be interpreted and rendered.
>
>
>> You mention the DOM for example. Good, the DOM is a way of describing how
>> HTML can be implemented in a browser. If you as browser vendors want to
>> describe that and agree upon it amongst yourselves...fine, I would 
>> welcome
>> that.
>
> That's what the WHATWG and W3C are for: to agree a common set of rules
> for web technologies.
>
> Thanks for the laugh. Now, think twice before rewritting such non-sense.
>
> Goodbye.

No need to get personal.

Like I said, I fully understand that UAs must have a standard construct to 
be able to deal with markup. But that does by no means mean that they should 
have control over the markup itself.
this does not mean ofcourse that UA-vendors couldn't do it; anybody could do 
it for all I care, as long as they do it with the actual purpose of HTML in 
mind, and defining an HTML based on the premise "it must be able to render 
on our browsers" is clearly not it. You have got it the wrong way round, it 
is "our browser can render it" that would be correct.

Bert 
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 09:49:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:07 UTC