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

Re: HTML interpreter vs. HTML user agent

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 16:57:52 -0400
Message-ID: <4A204C50.8000108@intertwingly.net>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Adam Barth wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> Could you elaborate on how this doesn't work with the rules in HTML5? (Or
>>> rather, with the rules in Adam's ID?)
>> That resource is served with a text/plain mime type, and therefore should
>> not be treated as a feed.
> 
> Perhaps we should change the algorithm to consider these documents to be feeds.
> 
>> At the present time, both IE8 and Firefox treat that document as a feed.
>> My assessment is that Firefox will continue to follow IE's lead in this
>> area, but I will gladly defer to those who actually work on the product.
> 
> That sounds like another argument for changing the algorithm.

At the present time Chrome will not treat that document as a feed.

My two cents: generally these rules were created not based on first 
principles, but rather based on reverse engineering a small number of 
browsers.  If it is intended that these rules apply to another class of 
tools (e.g. feed readers), then I will suggest that reverse engineering 
the behavior of the top "n" (n>=3) consumers in that category would seem 
appropriate.

> Adam

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 20:58:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:37 GMT