W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Proposed Design Principles updated

From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 21:12:47 -0700
Message-Id: <25A0A3EE-0460-4C8B-A1A6-D383920BAC84@apple.com>
Cc: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>

On Apr 4, 2007, at 9:03 PM, olivier Thereaux wrote:

> Dave,
> On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:46 , David Hyatt wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Elliott Sprehn wrote:
>>> Neither of which are standardized behavior so you'd need to use  
>>> the attribute for Safari, the viewsource url for Firefox, and  
>>> what ever feature was supported in Opera (is it?).
>>> What Karl suggests on the other hand is defined behavior as per  
>>> the HTTP protocol and the MIME type definition for text/plain.
>> We can't turn off content sniffing.  Sites break if we do.  "Don't  
>> break the existing Web" trumps all other design considerations.
> Isn't the case of CSS stylesheets served as text/plain a counter- 
> example of this?

I don't believe it is, unless WinIE has changed its behavior.  (I  
haven't tested IE7.)

> Some browsers started ignoring ill-served CSS, sites "broke"...  
> people eventually fixed their sites' config. The browsers' choice  
> to be strict, there, did not "break the web", arguably it helped  
> fix the web.


It seems that this is enough of an issue that Mozilla still has a  
tech note posted about it.

> This is why "don't break the web" may be too ambiguous a principle,  
> when it can be interpreted as "don't try to fix anything that seems  
> deeply broken about current implementations".

I don't think there's anything ambiguous about the principle.

Received on Thursday, 5 April 2007 04:12:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:18 UTC