- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:04:01 +0200
- To: "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:37:55 +0200, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote: >> But I think it should be one of the roles of this group to document the >> behavior that is needed to be able to browse the Web, which helps new >> browsers enter the market. That means specifying things to the level >> of detail that pages depend on, and it also means compromising on the >> details where existing implementations disagree. > > We are not specifying HTML 4.01 here. We're not? I think a large part of what this group should do is fixing HTML4. (A lot of this is already done by the HTML5 proposal.) Also, I don't think that introducing versioning for HTML at this point would be a good idea. It makes: * authoring more complex; * testing more complex; * developing new user agents more complex * maintaining existing user agents more complex; * specifications more complex. Another problem is that user agents incrementally evolve and not implement a complete specification perfectly in one go. They'll have bugs in their initial implementation of features, et cetera. > I'm happy to make HTML >4.01 have behavior based on "compromising > details where existing implementations disagree," even when that means > IE needs to change behavior - but not in a situation where that would > break compatibility with a current web page. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 6 April 2007 18:07:03 UTC