ben at adida.net
Tue Sep 9 15:29:35 PDT 2008
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> I don't see it as such. HTML5 is analysing the situation from all
> aspects with a view of making sure the aims and tradition of HTML are
> being followed.
I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. There have been significant
deviations from the "tradition" of HTML. HTML was meant to be a web of
documents, and it is being transformed, in large part by HTML5, into a
web of applications.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing (in fact a number of HTML5 additions
are, IMO, particularly good), but I don't think HTML5 can claim to be
"in the tradition of HTML" anymore than a number of other groups.
It is worth noting, in particular, that RDFa-in-XHTML1.1 was
co-developed by the XHTML Working Group at the W3C, including specific
individuals who have been involved in the development of HTML and CSS
since very early versions. It would be untrue to say that HTML5 is the
locus of HTML "tradition," as there are many different interpretations
as to what that tradition is and what the future of HTML should be.
> Make a technical argument that is
> conclusive and people will listen.
We have already done that at great length, using explicit examples, on
this very mailing list. We will continue to do so, but please take into
consideration that we have already done quite a bit of that.
More information about the whatwg