From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gavin Smith Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.texinfo.bugs,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: texi2html output validity Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 18:38:24 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87h9wqimf0.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87y4q1fekv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87k31kga2y.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87r3vsdps7.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87a92ehctk.fsf_-_@violet.siamics.net> <20141223164911.GD5623@free.fr> <87tx0mffk2.fsf@violet.siamics.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1419359928 22894 80.91.229.3 (23 Dec 2014 18:38:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 18:38:48 +0000 (UTC) To: Texinfo , Emacs developers Original-X-From: bug-texinfo-bounces+gnu-bug-texinfo2=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 23 19:38:40 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gnu-bug-texinfo2@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3ULl-0002DJ-6v for gnu-bug-texinfo2@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 19:38:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45930 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3ULk-0005j2-2T for gnu-bug-texinfo2@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:38:28 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55767) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3ULi-0005iu-9b for bug-texinfo@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:38:27 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3ULh-0003qq-G8 for bug-texinfo@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:38:26 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ig0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c05::231]:42922) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3ULh-0003qZ-B4; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:38:25 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-ig0-f177.google.com with SMTP id z20so5906615igj.16; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 10:38:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MdIgvsxF4TDU3s/RmggERhDII9CnMkbpLdj8jIJpXNI=; b=x0erfbPT6PXymhmRdUXC/knLLGOxtejej8wVmEJPHY5C8dqtCEuK5/zJ4jgkU/iQXs G5TwcN8pZUQ0SLXJA/DmPTB+Zx2DdHoOuHnLPP1/TPY3QfW2mHlKD7l6f/sD6rkYu3bM deZnRR6VfacwBd7Xb+j+UrGIybKEudjJCzeaFkbBbzSSGMe7luoPvvZtDwtI0CTgVH14 H8+EZjP9e57VBVpSvnO+ofAnJXKUgmKIjp5fnOTGtnHIeE2XprEAMUQLdSBWewUoeeXL kVO0Dpk8bKffMYzVDQqXECaXWLmSL5uHZ60ximv2FR/8di2YTUR6LLPO4EQ/4E3hNPWZ WuTw== X-Received: by 10.42.107.211 with SMTP id e19mr22530474icp.27.1419359904652; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 10:38:24 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.107.170.231 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 10:38:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87tx0mffk2.fsf@violet.siamics.net> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4001:c05::231 X-BeenThere: bug-texinfo@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports for the GNU Texinfo documentation system List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-texinfo-bounces+gnu-bug-texinfo2=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-texinfo-bounces+gnu-bug-texinfo2=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.texinfo.bugs:6988 gmane.emacs.devel:180595 Archived-At: > The problem is that for a couple of months now, the most recent > HTML version is HTML5, and it does /not/ specify these elements. > > Granted, there=E2=80=99re browsers which still support these, but= I > could easily imagine a new browser project being started that > would just ignore all the cruft that was already scheduled to be > removed back in the 20th century. > We're not bound to follow the latest HTML standard. If there become incompatibilities between more popular, newer and more standards-conformant browsers which are impractical to account for in the HTML output, or if such incompatibilities exist at the moment, then of course we should target what is the most common. At the moment though it doesn't seem that inconvenient to provide for browsers with limited CSS support or lacking support for newer tags.