- From: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:34:51 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-html@w3.org
Henri Sivonen schrieb: > On Apr 16, 2007, at 11:18, Dão Gottwald wrote: > >> Henri Sivonen schrieb: >>>> <!DOCTYPE html> >>>> <!--[mode = IE8]--> >>>> <html> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> It doesn't really matter what syntax you use for it. >>> It sure does. If Microsoft insists on more switches, the sane way is >>> to use an attribute on the root element as it survives through >>> various XML APIs. I have been involved in hacking a SAX-based tool to >>> preserve (against my explicit advice) IE6 quirks modeness in XHTML >>> served as text/html. (The XML decl thing.) It was ugly. >> >> Why should it survive? > > If it doesn't survive, the tool that zapped it will be blamed for > breaking the page. > > Scenario 1 (Good): > * Microsoft doesn't insist on IE-specific switches. > * The WG doesn't spec version identifiers. > * (X)HTML5 gets the standards mode and bug fixes apply. > > Scenario 2 (Bad): > * Microsoft insists on switches tied to IE versions. > * The WG vehemently objects. > * The conformance definition doesn't leave room for an attribute-based > switch on the root element. > * Microsoft bakes the switch into syntactic sugar to make the switch > invisible to conformance checkers. > * The switch gets dropped by architecturally sound XML toolchains that > do not round-trip syntactic sugar or that drop comments as permitted by > the XML spec. > [...] I see. But then the name of the attribute should make clear that it's IE-specific, and as an interim solution, it shouldn't be part of the spec. I think Chris Wilson agreed that they won't need new switches once they are close enough to the standards. --Dao
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 09:35:00 UTC