W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > September 2006


From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:03:37 +0100
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, public-appformats@w3.org, www-forms@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.te7akbfh64w2qv@id-c0020>

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:02:13 +0100, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>  
>> Do you mean it was a mistake that the WG said no to content sniffing or
>> a mistake that it wasn't stated in XHTML 1.0?
> I mean it was a mistake that the WG said no to content sniffing.  (I
> would have preferred to do it based on the presence of the XML
> declaration, "<?xml ... ?>".)
> In particular, content sniffing would have allowed migration to XHTML
> without waiting for the vast majority of browsers to support it.

I think I disagree with that actually. Consider the following scenario:

  1. Standards guy writes a tutorial on how to do things the new way;
  2. Developer, using IE mostly, reads the tutorial;
  3. The developer writes a simple document and publishes it:

       <?xml version="1.0"?>
       <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/">

  4. Renders in IE;
  5. "XML parsing failed: syntax error (Line: 8, Character: 0)" in Opera;
  6. Customers complain;
  7. Result is that we end up where we are now.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Friday, 1 September 2006 13:04:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:36:18 UTC