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

RE: The argument for |bugmode|

From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:05:26 -0700
To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "wri-talk@webrepair.org" <wri-talk@webrepair.org>
Message-ID: <5C276AFCCD083E4F94BD5C2DA883F05A27D9CDDF3A@tk5-exmlt-w600.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>

Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
>Do you agree with my earlier analysis[*] that a proprietary switch would make
>it much harder for authors to produce conforming web pages? If so, can you
>explain why this should be acceptable?

I guess I don't know what you mean by a conforming switch.

>>  (If there are no breaking changes, we don't need to worry about this.
>>That is unlikely to happen for quite a while.)
>
>I can't follow. "breaking changes" in what? "worry" by whom about what?

Breaking change in our behavior.  Changes that cause differences in rendering, object model or interactive behavior.

>> I want the HTML spec to have version - e.g. in DOCTYPE - because I 1) think
>>it's insane to build a format with no version identifier, and 2) will
>>opportunistically use this to automatically turn on any future opt-ins when
>>such a version identifier becomes popular.
>
>I'm afraid I cannot follow this either. Could you elaborate please? (Not just
>for me. I get the impression that your standpoint isn't clear to quite a few
>people. If it would become clear to more people there'd be a better chance we
>can work towards a solution, instead of proposing solutions based on
>misunderstanding of the situation.)

Part 1 or 2?

-C
Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 22:05:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:43 UTC