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

[public-html] <none>

From: Gareth Hay <ghay@garaidh.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:36:10 +0100
To: W3C List <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5493C049-8B00-41B1-B4CF-8A776CA6B272@garaidh.com>
Cc: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
I'm sorry, but I just can't agree on most if not all of the points
>
>
>> What is preventing them having an HTML5 mode, which may or may not  
>> build upon their previous engine.
>> That way, you visit a page that you used to (google, bank, etc)  
>> browser uses 'old' mode.
>> You visit an HTML5 page, browser uses the new mode.
>> Why is this a problem?
>
> There are several problems with that, all of which have been  
> mentioned several times on this list.
>
> * It doesn't help improve interoperability for legacy content.
> * New browsers in the future will still be forced to reverse  
> engineer legacy browsers, instead of just implementing the spec.
> * Browser vendors (except for IE) don't want to maintain more  
> different modes for for HTML because it increases complexity and  
> cost.  (see the versioning threads)
> * Every new mode that is introduced, introduces a new mode that may  
> need to be reverse engineered and specced.
>
> There are probably more that I can't remember off hand, please  
> search the archives.
>

Maybe I wasn't clear. Browser manufacturers just freeze what they  
have now as "legacy mode".
They begin implementing HTML5 as "html5 mode". If a page fails to  
render in HTML5, for whatever reason, you either stop rendering and  
report the error, or attempt to render the page in "old mode". I  
don't see anyone having a page that doesn't work in this situation.  
Browser vendors will then be implementing to the HTML5 spec, so I  
don't see how there is any reverse engineering or different modes.  
(Just HTML5 or legacy - with legacy receiving no updates to the  
codebase as of HTML5 release)

>
> A new browser manufacturer, starting from scratch, is not going to
> already have a mode that renders existing pages.
>
If we discount the possibility of another browser manufacturer  
entering the market for a moment.
Do we really want to carry on the way we have, with browsers  
attempting to render bad code and poorly spec. stuff all over the  
place, or do we actually want to standardise on a spec and move forward.
I think the correct course of action is as I have stated before, keep  
what we have as "legacy mode", but bring in html5 mode to render new  
html5 pages. Creating an HTML5 only browser frees us of the legacy  
nonsense. (as that is effectively what would be happening)
It's not as if we are going to remove legacy browsers as new HTML5  
browsers come along.
I don't think it is realistic to have one browser to render 100% of  
the web. It's just not, so let's get with the program that will give  
us this solution in a reasonable amount of time.

>> What is preventing them having an HTML5 mode, which may or may not
>> build upon their previous engine.
>
> Nothing -- the new manufacturer can implement an HTML5 mode, following
> the spec.  But at that point, the browser could fail to render most of
> today's web content -- because most of the current content was written
> without knowledge of HTML5, and indeed without following any spec at
> all.

I read this as saying, "If I design a program to render Latex, it  
won't render the rest of the web". Of course it won't.

I don't see the problem, release HTML5 as "Web 2.0" and tell everyone  
they need a new browser, problem solved, you want Web2.0 sites, you  
need the new browser (just keep your old browser for the rest of the  
web)

It's not ideal, but it gets us to a much better location than we can  
ever get to with quirks modes and almost standards modes, and  
backwards compatibility.\

Gareth
Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 13:36:39 UTC

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