- From: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:44:34 +0200
- To: Henk-Jan de Boer <html-wg@hjdeboer.nl>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Preston L. Bannister" <preston@bannister.us>, "Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>, Alexander Graf <a.graf@aetherworld.org>, public-html@w3.org
Henk-Jan de Boer schrieb: > I get the feeling that Microsoft tries to keep a back door open with > proposing versioning, simply because the don't really believe that HTML5 > will be fully backwards compatible for IE (that is, compatible with all > or at least nearly all content that relies on their old bugs) Nobody can prevent MS from doing one more mode switch for <!DOCTYPE html>. And this single switch wouldn't be a problem, in my opinion. Other browsers don't have to follow that route, as their standards modes are incompatible with IE even today. But AFAICT, Microsoft's argument is that HTML>5 won't be necessarily backwards-compatible and could require a doctype switch (hence versioning). That doesn't sound like a valid argument to me, given that we all want future HTML versions to be backwards-compatible and that existing switches aren't there to represent HTML versions but to emulate the wrong rendering behaviour from older browsers. Now I fear that MS actually wants more switches because their initial implementation for the new HTML5 rendering mode (that includes CSS and DOM at least) could be screwed up again. I don't think that's acceptable. > Wouldn't it be better to > pick up the versioning debate later on, when Apple, Opera and Mozilla > can claim that HTML5 is fully backwards compatible with existing content? IE, due to its broken standards mode, often gets different content served than Safari, Opera and Firefox. Authors expect IE to be broken, hence the risk to break sites when fixing bugs. You can't test this with other browsers. --Dao
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 14:44:52 UTC