W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: legacy of incompetence? [was: a compromise to the versioning debate]

From: Preston L. Bannister <preston@bannister.us>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:09:52 -0700
Message-ID: <7e91ba7e0704152109w30ea4336k398d4baf579531c7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>, "Alexander Graf" <a.graf@aetherworld.org>, public-html@w3.org
On 4/15/07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 15, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Preston L. Bannister wrote:
>
> One extreme interpretation of the proposed compatibility principles is
> that HTML-next describes a parser and interpreter that can handle any past
> W3C version or browser variant of HTML.  In this case, version specifiers
> become unnecessary (and some of the prior discussion makes more sense).
>
>
> That is exactly the goal that is proposed for this group (although not all
> vendors may choose to take advantage of it).
>


Is this possible without breaking existing applications?  This is where the
IE-folk probably know more than anyone else.  End users are not at all
amused when their applications stop working, and you know what?  The
customer is always right.  If the IE-folk are convinced that versionless
HTML can be well described in specification, and not break existing
applications - then (and only then) this is a great idea.

Actually there are two questions here:  1) can it be done, and 2) will the
resulting specification be not-painful to read.  Sounds like this
specification would have to exactly describe how IE interprets HTML.
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 04:09:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:42 UTC