- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:05:28 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- cc: www-html@w3.org
On 1 May, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> A common set of /bugs/ with which new standards/browsers should be
>> compliant? Did I understand you correctly?
>
> I meant to say that we need to define the set of features that are
> essential for remaining compatible with the content on the web, which
> is determined by doing research into what browsers do and studying
> the content that exists on the web today.
In other words the WG is to study, and document, both good and bad
practices of browsers and authors today, and tailor the specification
to allow them?
It is difficult to conclude otherwise, since you yourself admit that
most of what IS out there is "extremely broken HTML". The idea, then,
become that the WG will simply make the bad the good and that's that?
Much markup on the web today /is/ poor. We /do not/ fix that by
redefining reality to make it /good/.
> I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to as I wasn't around when
> HTML 3.2 was developed and I don't know what the process was back then.
The spec authors looked at what browsers supported, documented it, and
called it a standard.
I'd have hoped it wouldn't happen again.
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net
+46 708 557 905
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 17:05:33 UTC