- 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
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:02:13 +0100, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
wrote:
>> 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/">
<head>
...
</head>
<body>
...
</html>
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
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 1 September 2006 13:03:59 UTC