W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: ISSUE-4: Versioning, namespace URIs and MIME types

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:13:36 -0500
Message-ID: <499C41C0.8030800@mit.edu>
To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Robert J Burns wrote:
> I still think this is a distraction because the question now being posed 
> is that if a scripting author needs to implement much of what a UA (such 
> as a general purpose rendering engine) already does, isn't that hard. 
> Well yet I think it probably is pretty hard. But if a DOM/Script author 
> simply lets the UA handle things for them, then the scripting is not 
> complicated at all. The browser will determine the proper handling of 
> the element (and 'iimg' element or any other element).

So what you're saying is that the right way to handle <img> with script 
for document authors is to create documents that they know are 
non-conformant in all languages involved (and which might not even be 
serializable if the language happens to be HTML5, not XHTML5 or XHTML2), 
and then to assume that UA error handling will "do the right thing"?

That seems like a highly undesirable situation to me, honestly.

> Well the example given (but now snipped) was specifically about what to 
> do when an author intentionally produces a non-conforming document. So 
> if your concern is about conforming documents the script example given 
> is even more of a distraction.

My concern is that an author who wishes to produce a conforming document 
via DOM APIs and include images in it might not be able to do so as the 
situation stands.

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 17:14:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:01 UTC