Re: HTML is a declarative mark-up language

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:06:04 +0100, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>  
wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren 2009-01-29 12.51:
>> Reading this and the rest of your e-mail I get the impression you are  
>> not really interested in helping making HTML5 a better specification.  
>> It almost reads like you're just flaming at the way things currently  
>> are rather than helping out with improving the status quo. Why is that?
>
> I'm not sure if that's simply a rhetorical question, because you as much  
> as anyone should know the answer. Many of us (including Leif and myself)  
> arrived here with the intention of improving the status quo. However,  
> the grandstanding by you and others have effectively shut us out  
> entirely from the process. Serious proposals are shot down with witty  
> one liners, by you and Ian and others.

Communication could be better, I agree. Though I'd also like to think that  
if they were seriously good ideas there would be enough people that agree  
with you and it would happen regardless.


> I cannot speak for Leif, but my view now is that the best thing that can  
> happen for the web is that the disastrous HTML vocabulary chapters never  
> get published as a normative recommendation.

I wonder to what extent that will have effect on vendors implementing it  
and authors using it. Also, there is not really an alternative and letting  
Flash and all take all these features over seems like a major loss.


> In any event other damage has already been done since all of the effort  
> spent on HTML5 has served to stifle any genuine improvements to the HTML  
> vocabulary for several years (and other efforts like HTML 5 have  
> undermined efforts to improve the status quo going back nearly a decade).

You'll have to elaborate on this one. I don't really follow.


> The unwillingness to improve the parsing algorithm also is a part of the  
> status quo that needs to change.

Unwillingness with respect to what? Improvements to the parsing algorithm  
are still being made. (Without HTML5 there wouldn't even be a parsing  
algorithm to speak of.)


> There are minor improvements to the HTML vocabulary in HTML5 ('figure'  
> and 'canvas' to name two), however, they are so intermixed with the  
> HTML5 baggage that they don't really provide significant benefits in the  
> end.

Why not? E.g. <canvas> can easily be used standalone and is already by  
JavaScript libraries etc.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 09:52:49 UTC