- From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:48:27 +0100
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
- CC: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Murray Maloney wrote: > So, I may be alone -- consider this a cry in the dark -- but I still > don't think > that the browser should define HTML. That was the POV that was pomulgated > by Mosaic and Netscape developers back in 1994. I didn't buy it then and I > don't buy it now. HTML is more than what the browser guys say it is. You're most certainly not alone. I joined this group because the message that was coming across loud-and-clear on WWW-HTML was just that, and I -- like you -- strongly disagree with the philosophy. As Tina Holmboe wrote on WWW-HTML, in reply to a message from Lachlan Hunt : >> Yes. Any behaviour we define has to be compatible with the existing >> content on the web, much of which relies on such behaviour. This >> doesn't mean we need to document every single bug in every browser. >> We need to define a common set > > A common set of /bugs/ with which new standards/browsers should be > compliant? Did I understand you correctly? The W3C should define HTML, and browser manufacturers should be willing to accept that definition (or to reject it, at their own risk: this is a free world), but it would be a great boost for standards were the "W3C HTML 5" logo to be as applicable to /browsers/ as it will be to web pages. Philip Taylor
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 16:48:47 UTC