- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:56:42 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:26:34 +0100, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:58:03 +0100, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote: >>>> That's the choice, I think. I prefer #1. >>> The reason I prefer #2 is that we have had reason to obsolete >>> features over time. Given that it makes sense that conformance also >>> evolves over time as we learn more about the medium. >> >> But we're not obsoleting, we're removing. > > Removing is what I understand obsoleting to be. (Though I believe all > old features are still mentioned.) > > >> If HTML5 only removed things that were already deprecated in HTML4 >> we'd probably have a different discussion. > > If we developed HTML5 at the pace of HTML32, HTML4, etc. that might be > reasonable, but I don't think that is necessary now. The current way the spec and the registration is written will cause huge amounts of previously valid text/html content to become invalid. That can be fixed by obsoleting less stuff in HTML5 or by continuing to allow HTML 4 to be used for text/html. Or we can continue to ignore the issue until we try to update the mime type registration, and then the issue will come up again. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2010 13:57:21 UTC