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

(no subject)

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:29:35 -0600
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <58CAF80E-FA46-4A7F-8AC0-DEF93F866FFC@robburns.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
Received-SPF: none
X-SPF-Guess: pass
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-2.599
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1LZqFI-00079b-6s 04590736df5eb853d306274123a1f214
X-Original-To: public-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: ISSUE-4: Versioning, namespace URIs and MIME types ISSUE-60

Hi Boris,

On Feb 18, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:

> 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.

I have no idea how you read that in what I said. What I am saying is  
that authors should produce documents that are conforming and that  
they should not re-implement an entire UA in javascript just to  
display an image (this is good and sometimes overlooked advice for  
scripting in general; let the browser be a browser).

The serialization issues already exist due to different capabilities  
of XML and text/html parsers. This seems like another red herring  
introduced into a discussion which is supposed to be about conflicts  
(specifically name collisions that are not addressed by context),  
between XHTML1, XHTML2 and XHTML5.

And I would never suggest authors assume UA error handling will "do  
the right thing", especially for an author trying to use a non- 
conforming document (as the previous red herring script example does).  
Once an author steps outside conforming authoring practices the need  
to test against targeted UAs. Again, I don't know what these issues  
you're raising have to do with the original topic of conversation.

>> 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.

Well, we haven't found any conflicts for the conforming document  
situation. Could you provide an example of one you're thinking about?  
Please see the earlier message to refresh yourself on the current  

Take care,

[1]: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0451.html>
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 17:30:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:42 UTC