W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: HTML5 script start tag should select appropriate content model according to src

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:46:48 +0300
Message-Id: <106A9E02-9D79-41FA-ACFA-724C088406EF@iki.fi>
Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, www-html@w3.org
To: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>

On Apr 23, 2007, at 17:23, Tina Holmboe wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 11:39:19PM +1000, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> seen very little use in reality have not.  I do not understand why it
>> would be sensible to begin with a spec of such poor quality as the  
>> basis
>> for work on the next version of HTML, particularly when a  
>> significantly
>> better spec already exists.
>   A significantly better specification does /not/ exist. Not yet.

Out of curiosity, where do you expect a competing better spec to emerge?

> The
>   current HTML 4.01 specification would, IMHO, be as good, if not
>   better, starting point than the WA1 draft.
>   And we already /have/ implementations of it.

We don't have implementations of HTML 4.01. If it seems like we have,  
it is an illusion. As a major point, HTML 4.01 is supposed to be an  
application of SGML but none of the top 4 browsers (or top whatever)  
implement it as an application of SGML.

>   Once it becomes the WD, then I shall certainly give input on
>   the public-html mailing list. I am, however, not going to join
>   the *WHATWG* mailing list.

That comment suggests that you have a strong belief in the referent  
power of the W3C and you seem to consider WHATWG illegitimate for  
political reasons. I'd much prefer judging the draft on its technical  

>   There is not now, nor has there EVER been, a legitimate use case for
>   the I or B elements in HTML.

Only if you believe that italicizing or bolding text is illegitimate.

>   I and B are today, and was yesterday, purely presentational. They  
> are,
>   in the real world, USED for presentation. They are DESIGNED for
>   presentation.

And many authors think in terms of bold and italic and the elements  
are interoperably implemented.

> There never was. The pragmatic decision to
>   make is to remove I and B from the specification, declared them dead
>   and void, and *move on*.

For some strange definition of "pragmatic".

>> You have not presented any arguments against the spec, except for the
>> fact that it isn't hosted at the W3C.  But even that argument is
>   I have presented several. In my not too humble opinion the WA1 draft
>   is not of sufficient quality to be chosen as the starting point of
>   a new revision of HTML - and as such it should certainly not be
>   implemented.

I haven't noticed you presenting several arguments about the quality  
of the spec. I've seen you object to its origin.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 15:47:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:21:02 UTC