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

Re: The argument for |bugmode|

From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:25:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4628A31B.9000309@earthlink.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: W3C HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> I agree that Matthew Raymond's objection to this was incorrect - I do  
> not believe it to be the case that a "switch, by being proprietary,  
> would be non-conformant" for the document if it were hidden in  
> comment syntax.

   My understanding is that XML parsers can ignore comments entirely, so
to have an XHTML5 user agent process a comment is counter to XML. It
would require a redesign of some existing XML parsers just so they could
handle a specific XML-based language. I don't know about Processing
Instructions, so you may have me there, although it would have to be
clear that this didn't cause a problem with existing toolsets.

   Another solution is to put the switch in a <meta> element. However,
all opt-into-standards-mode switches have the fundamental problem that
they increase bandwidth, thus handicapping standards-compliant content
in situations where bandwidth is limited.

> But your rejoinder was also incorrect.
> 
> Using such a switch to turn implementation conformance on or off  
> would render the implementation nonconformant. I do not see how we  
> could allow that without watering the spec down to meaninglessness,  
> especially if nonconformance occurs in the *absence* of the switch.

   Ah, but you fail to follow his logic. If the spec says that, by
default, you can be non-conforming unless you opt into conformance, you
are in fact conforming! Thus we eliminate non-conformance by redefining
what conformance is.
Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 11:22:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:53 GMT