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

Re: The argument for |bugmode|

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:05:44 -0700
Message-Id: <D210F3E1-00A9-45FB-B92F-399CDE760C2D@apple.com>
Cc: W3C HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>

On Apr 19, 2007, at 11:40 PM, Terje Bless wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> mattraymond@earthlink.net (Matthew Raymond) wrote:
>> Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> No.  We will have our own proprietary, non-invalidating opt-in  
>>> switch to
>>> "really standards as of IEn" mode.
>> This is even worse, because the switch, by being proprietary, would
>> be non-conformant, so a standards-conformant document would have  
>> to be
>> turned into a non-conformant document just to be rendered as a
>> standards-conformant document. […]
> It is arguable whether altering the behavior of an UA
> implementation based on, say, a “magic” comment — <?x-ms
> level="5"?> — in a way that is not explicitly defined in the
> standard would affect the implementation's conformance status.

If the comment was a syntactically valid comment then I believe it  
would affect conformance status. And this should be so; otherwise, an  
implementation that has any arbitrary behavior in the presence of at  
least one comment would remain conformant. However, embedding a  
comment that some UAs treat specially would not affect conformance  
status of the document.


> - --
>    I'm [less] than thrilled by the [VM situation]; all sides of
> it. I [think]
>    we need a [fork] in that area so that you guys would stop
> stepping on each
>    others' toes.  I'm taking no part in your merry 5-way
> clusterfuck  -- sort
>    that mess out between yourselves.                -- Alexander
> Viro on lkml
> Version: PGP SDK 3.8.1
> wj8DBQFGKGBWo/I+siR19ewRAn0FAKDlccavVCdzj2xfbK9gF1FYcPbjTQCgm83V
> UZVAR82K4TlSZdzfbGLfhVU=+30D
Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 07:06:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:19 UTC