|
Posted by Henri Sivonen on April 12, 2007, 5:11 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> As you can see from the W3C main page now, http://www.w3.org , or from the
> press release http://www.w3.org/2007/03/html-pressrelease , the Consortium
> has decided that HTML 5 is a good idea if they define it.
>
> They want to be "compatible" wíth "'classic HTML' parsers", which presumably
> means that HTML 5 documents must make sense when rendered by existing tag
> soup processors.
More to the point, the parsing algorithm for HTML5 should cope with
existing content. HTML5 should degrade reasonably gracefully as well.
> They also want all kinds of widgets and gadgets and extras, as outlined at
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html
>
> I didn't find anything referring to a semantically richer language, so this
> probably won't be another HTML 3. Rather, it'll be HTML 4 extended with
> <embed> (under a different name), if you see what I mean.
Apple, Opera and Mozilla have proposed that the new HTML WG adopt WHATWG
HTML5 as the starting point.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0429.html
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html
| 
XML Sitemap