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

Re: HTML version issue summary?

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:07:43 +0200
Message-Id: <p0624063ac255202d66ee@[192.168.0.101]>
To: public-html@w3.org

At 17:16 -0700 UTC, on 2007-04-24, David Hyatt wrote:

[...]

> (4) I think IE's opt-in should be independent of DOCTYPE until such
> time as they are confident that they have HTML5.0 fully implemented
> and supported.  Then one could imagine the doctype being used as the
> opt-in.

Do you mean for the spec to specifically state this? If not, how are auhors
to know what <!DOCTYPE x> is for; why they should or should not include it?

To clarify: I imagine that part of why authors today claim HTML 4 Strict yet
still expect quirks mode, is that the HTML spec doesn't attribute magic like
standards/quirks modes to the Strict/Transitional doctypes. So if this WG
intends to continue on the quirks/standards modes path, the spec should
define those things. If it doesn't, that'd be like saying to authors "How UAs
interpret your web pages remains voodoo".

> (5) I do not think the spec should attempt to say how browsers opt in
> to HTML5.

Then could you please answer what I asked Chris Wilson in
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1239.html> and
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1284.html>?

> Microsoft should be allowed to design their own mechanism
> for this.

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean the spec should state "Microsoft is
allowed to define its own opt-in switch"?


-- 
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 17:12:11 GMT

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