<story><title>HTML 5.2 Recommendation</title><url>https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>masswerk</author><text>Hm – I&amp;#x27;m not too happy to see most of the original HTML-elements marked &amp;quot;not conforming&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;must not be used&amp;quot;, thus preparing for browsers to eventually drop the support. There are still lots of web-sites and valuable information stored and archived in this format. Back in the day, it was thought that basic HTML was a format to last. Who is going to update these documents in order to make them conforming to future browsers? Or are we just dropping a decade of documentation? Is it worth it?&lt;p&gt;(Consider: Apparently, MS-Word docs or PDF prove longer lived than basic HTML documents! Who would have thought of this?)</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>domenicd</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t really know what process the W3C fork of our work uses for removal, if any, but you can learn more about how features get removed in the (WHATWG) HTML Standard per our working mode:&lt;p&gt;- &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;whatwg.org&amp;#x2F;working-mode#removals&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;whatwg.org&amp;#x2F;working-mode#removals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;- &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;whatwg.org&amp;#x2F;faq#removing-bad-ideas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;whatwg.org&amp;#x2F;faq#removing-bad-ideas&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;In short, I think it&amp;#x27;s important to distinguish between conformance and removal from browsers. Removal from browsers is a big deal and, as per those links, is only done when it&amp;#x27;s not going to break the web, or when the benefits are very high (e.g. security issues). Removal from being conformant just reflects the evolution of best practices. See also &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;whatwg&amp;#x2F;html&amp;#x2F;blob&amp;#x2F;master&amp;#x2F;FAQ.md#how-are-developers-to-determine-when-certain-parts-of-their-pages-will-become-invalid&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;whatwg&amp;#x2F;html&amp;#x2F;blob&amp;#x2F;master&amp;#x2F;FAQ.md#how-are-de...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>HTML 5.2 Recommendation</title><url>https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>masswerk</author><text>Hm – I&amp;#x27;m not too happy to see most of the original HTML-elements marked &amp;quot;not conforming&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;must not be used&amp;quot;, thus preparing for browsers to eventually drop the support. There are still lots of web-sites and valuable information stored and archived in this format. Back in the day, it was thought that basic HTML was a format to last. Who is going to update these documents in order to make them conforming to future browsers? Or are we just dropping a decade of documentation? Is it worth it?&lt;p&gt;(Consider: Apparently, MS-Word docs or PDF prove longer lived than basic HTML documents! Who would have thought of this?)</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>vorpalhex</author><text>The HTML mode tag should put the browser into compatibility mode. This content should not be lost.</text></comment>