Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Tue Jul 24 07:19:58 PDT 2012
On 7/24/12 12:55 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> Where exactly is it not predefined? HTML4 includes a full set of
>> character entities for Latin-1, see
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/entities.html. I couldn't imagine that
>> some of these were abandoned in HTML5. XML is a different story of
>> course, but here we are talking about HTML, no?
>No. As far as I can tell, we're discussing XHTML.
always works, so we don't have to close the loop on HTML dialect
That said, I'm going to argue strongly for HTML, with some slight
modifications to preferred serialization to increase the number of tools
that can be used. The biggest reason is going to be marketing, not
technical - and I expect that to upset some folks, for which I apologize
The IETF brand has been ravaged by decades of obstinate conservatism in
the look of our primary output. To the next generation of potential
protocol developers, this not only calls the quality of our technical work
into question, but also is an indicator that they're not welcome into our
old-boys club of cryptic tooling.
In the world outside the IETF, HTML5 is non-controversial - in fact it's
assumed as a starting point for a lot of new development. The fact that
it's going to keep evolving over time is seen as a good thing. I believe
to combat the image problem that we have we should take a small amount of
risk in order to move to where the world is going, rather than once again
picking a decade old technology because we understand it slightly better.
More information about the rfc-interest