- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:38:13 -0800
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
> Is there an intention to have at least the vast majority of the older > content work and be considered conforming? I don't want to make the vast majority of older *content* "be considered conforming". I do think it's reasonable to expect that previous older content which both *works* and *was conforming* to *continue to be conforming*. Put another way: I think it's reasonable to make things that were previously non-conforming ONLY if they didn't actually work, weren't weren't actually deployed, weren't actually implemented. Extended DOCTYPES and head/@profile are examples of content that is, in HTML5, non-conforming, but * WERE conforming to previously issued specs * actually work with current browsers * have been deployed * have actually been implemented. The only things obsoleted with HTML 4 were things that didn't meet these criteria. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 17:39:00 UTC