W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > July 2000

RE: Doctype detection

From: Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:09:04 +0100
Message-ID: <81E4A2BC03CED111845100104B62AFB582489B@stagecoach.bts.co.uk>
To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
> From:	Matthew Brealey [SMTP:webmaster@richinstyle.com]
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > 
> > 1. For browsers to have any significant market share they must
> >    render legacy content in a backwards-compatible way.
	Actually, it is stronger than this; they must render
	HTML that is as badly broken as that which their
	competition renders and in more or less the same way,
	in spite of the error recovery not being documented.
	This is also needed to keep their support costs under

	(Backward compatibility seems to me to be fundamental
	to the origins of HTML, and error tolerance in consumers
	is a fundamtal principle of internet standards, although
	that doesn't excuse the many broken authoring tools, as
	they are producers.)

> That's not true. Microsoft owns the browser market and can do what it
> likes. If it released a compliant browser, this would not affect its
	In that case, can I propose that the www-html list
	(and W3C HTML activity) be disbanded, 
	as I can't see that it makes any sense
	when the standard is controlled by a monopoly 
	developer.  It would be like having an Acrobat Consortium
	list to advise Adobe on the design of PDF.

	Actually, I think it is, in part, the de facto monopoly
	in the early days of Netscape that led to most of
	the HTML quality problems we see these days.  (Followed
	by attempts to leap frog with new presentational features.)


--------------------------- DISCLAIMER ---------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.

Received on Thursday, 27 July 2000 14:09:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:54 UTC