Anne van Kesteren


Thoughts. This should become interesting. The page points to Web Applications 1.0 which seems like a good thing. I don’t like public-html. Why couldn’t www-html be reused? They define HTML realistically: HTML is the publishing language of the World Wide Web. We’ll see how it goes.

You can participate now!

In other news, I enjoy listening to Coldplay.


  1. Why wouldn't you like "Public" especially since they (i.e., W3C) are on a Public Relations campaign for their open proceedings. [I'm listening to Ministry's "Just One Fix" long version as I type this.]

    Posted by Sean Fraser at

  2. I like the Architectural vision for HTML/XHTML2/Forms document it links to. I think it makes sense. It mentions that XHTML2 is indeed very useful in an authoring environment (as I have used it as well, because HTML falls short), but on the web I don’t see it happening yet.

    Then again, I wonder how much of the XHTML2 stuff will get into the new specification. section will get in, obviously, and I hope h will too, even though it wasn’t in the Web Apps 1.0 spec. Then there’s di which I think is sensible, acronym is taken out in both specs, and let’s not forget the RDFa stuff which should really get in there as well. Finally I hope for blockcode too.

    The other way around, figure and legend, the combined HTML/XML serialisations, and the Web Forms 2 stuff are also very useful. The nav, article, aside, header and footer elements I’m not too enthusiastic about, the predefined classnames are a nice idea and this would be much better suited as one of those. (Actually, dare I mention the role attribute? :))

    Let’s hope that this W3C group can get the best of both worlds.

    With regard to music, I discovered Air not too long ago, and I like it. One of the nice songs is ‘Alone in Kyoto’ (although I don’t feel so alone :)).


    Posted by Laurens Holst at

  3. Hi Anne,

    About reusing www-html. We discussed about it in the W3C staff in the last couple of weeks as an option. We were struggling to find the easiest way for everyone.

    The issue was to get the participant to acknowledge the Patent Policy for contributing to the HTML work, specifically when all important decisions are made through mailing list as specified in the charter. To avoid the hassles of removing subscription of hundred of people of www-html and having them to join again, it was easier to create a new mailing list where they could upfront acknowledge the patent policy and keep the www-html mailing list for casual discussions about HTML.

    Posted by Karl Dubost at

  4. ‘A Rush of Blood to the Head’ is great.

    Posted by nick at

  5. Laurens, yeah, Air is nice too. The vision document looks like a joke to me though. Probably there to please some members who believe in an XML future and have invested quite a bit of money already in XHTML2 and XForms.

    Karl, thanks. Fair enough.

    Posted by Anne van Kesteren at