- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:16:07 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > > Section 1.7: > > "The first such concrete syntax is "HTML5". This is the format > recommended for most authors. It is compatible with all legacy Web > browsers." > > I challenge the claim that HTML5 is compatible with *all* legacy Web > browsers. I can produce valid HTML 4 documents today that are not > compatible with *all* legacy Web browsers. I suggest this be weakened to > something like "is compatible with most Web browsers still in active use > today". Changed "all" to "most". On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Simon Pieters wrote: > > I guess the following is an example of a valid HTML5 document that is > incompatible with legacy Web browsers: > > <!doctype html> > <title></title> > <svg><script/></svg> > <p>Hello world</p> It's certainly possible to use the language in a way that is incompatible with legacy UAs. On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > > I think the meaning of "compatible with all existing browsers" here is > that HTML 5 does not *require* authors to break compatibility with any > existing browser. Exactly. > Clearer wording might be like, "HTML5 pages can be written to be > compatible with all legacy Web browsers." Of course, "all legacy Web > browsers" does need to be construed to exclude Netscape Navigator 3 and > such. If you really want to be picky, it could be "all legacy Web > browsers that still see significant use." I think just saying the language is compatible is probably clear enough. On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Erik Vorhes wrote: > > I agree completely with your interpretation of the phrase. HTML5 is > intended to enhance the web without breaking it, so noting (or even > emphasizing) how it's backwards-compatible is important and useful. > > But the phrase should be clarified along similar lines to what you've > articulated. Maybe: "HTML5 can be written in such a way that it is > compatible with all browsers made after X date"? I don't think most people reading this are really going to be confused either way on this. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 20:16:07 UTC