- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:21:08 +1000
- To: tina@greytower.net
- CC: www-html@w3.org
Tina Holmboe wrote: > I do /not/ expect the W3C to simply take aboard a document created by > an industry group and in rather dire need of revision. It's not good > enough. Why isn't it good enough? Could you be a little more specific about what is wrong with it? > It has the entirely wrong focus, has started off on the wrong > foot, is huge, unwieldy, and - my personal view - badly written. What is wrong with its focus? In fact, what do you think the focus is, and what, in your opinion, would be the right focus? > At this point in time I suggest we start with 4.01 Strict, HTML 4.01 is extremely poorly defined, it is not interoperably implemented and does not reflect reality. Why would it be a better start than HTML5? > toss out deprecated elements HTML5 has not included most deprecated elements, though it has revived several features that were wrongly deprecated, like <menu>, <iframe>, <ol start=""> and <li value="">. > and *everything presentational* Other than <b> and <i>, and <font style=""> (for WYSIWYG editors only), HTML5 doesn't, AFAICS, include any other features that could be considered presentational. Of those, <font> is the only one I would agree with dropping. Its inclusion is very much disputed and I suspect it will be dropped in favour of allowing style="" on almost any element, or possibly dropped entirely in favour of scoped stylesheets. > merge the good ideas from WA1, and start with the resulting draft. Do you realise how much time we would waste by starting with HTML4 and removing/replacing with features from HTML5, just to end up with a spec equivalent to the HTML5 spec we have now? A much better approach would be to start with the much more mature HTML5 spec and raise issues against the specific sections you have problems with. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 02:21:18 UTC