- From: Matthew Brealey <webmaster@richinstyle.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:53:28 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <py8ieh=mozilla@bath.ac.uk>
- CC: www-style@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > > 1. For browsers to have any significant market share they must > render legacy content in a backwards-compatible way. 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 market share, on the basis that most people get Internet Explorer with their computer, and do not even realise that other browsers exist (and also on the fact that it is popular for its interface more than its levels of support for CSS and HTML). The people who have created crappy sites would very soon fix them if they started looking bad in Explorer. If they chose to follow this root the web would be standards-compliant within a couple of years. > 2. Browsers should render documents designed for the standards > in a standards-compliant way without being explicitly told > to using non-standard extensions. > > ...how would you suggest browsers should detect whether to use > their quirks mode or their standard compliant mode? Answer: they shouldn't. If they must, the only way this should be implemented is via a HTTP header (and http-equiv). It is vital that the default be correct, rather than bug, mode - as I said above, sites would change in a flash if Explorer was compliant (and this would do Microsoft a lot of good too I might add). ----------------------------------- Please visit http://RichInStyle.com. Featuring: MySite: customizable styles. AlwaysWork style Browser bug table covering all CSS2 with links to descriptions. Lists of > 1000 browser bugs Websafe Colorizer CSS2, CSS1 and HTML4 tutorials. CSS masterclass CSS2 test suite: 5000++ tests and 300+ test pages.
Received on Thursday, 27 July 2000 04:54:05 UTC