~bohwaz/blog/

Avec de vrais morceaux de 2.0 !

HTML5 lol rofl mdr

HTML-WG (and WHATWG) mailing lists are a great time to read (when I read them, and it happens only when I don't have anything to do, so approximately one time each month), there is a bunch of great people, talking about the future of the web. And most of the discussions are just annoying, talking about useless ideas and making stupid decisions. I can give you a lot of examples like removing the recommandation about Vorbis and Theora from the spec, or about re-adding <font>, <b> and <i> to the spec, and whatever things against evolutions of the past few years in the semantic web. Some days ago, a message was really interesting, telling us that SVG should have been in text/html instead of XML :

SVG should have been put in to text/html ten years ago because at no stage was there any thing to suggest that the web was ever going to be predominantly XML.

HTML5 just represents the web as it is today, so this isn't actually a problem that HTML5 has created, it's a problem with the way that SVG has been developed (in XML when the web is text/html), so I believe that if anything needs to change it's SVG, not HTML5.

Wow yes it seems so obvious : we *have* to change the SVG spec to meet the new crappy ideas from the HTML5 spec, because the web is not in XML, it's just text/html. This working group is actually making great progress in intellectual masturbation. Grumpf.

Write a comment
(optional)
(optional)
(mandatory)
                  _                     
 _ __   __ _ _ __| |_ ___ _ __ _ __ ___ 
| '_ \ / _` | '__| __/ _ \ '__| '__/ _ \
| |_) | (_| | |  | ||  __/ |  | | |  __/
| .__/ \__,_|_|   \__\___|_|  |_|  \___|
|_|                                     
(mandatory)

URLs will create links automatically.
Allowed HTML tags: <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <code> <var> <strong> <em> <del> <ins> <kbd> <samp> <abbr>