- From: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:20:27 -0400
- To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > If this is indeed the case, then you shouldn't be asking for a change to > the spec. Just add another IE comment syntax: > > <!--[ie 8]--> > > ...which makes IE browsers render the page according to the given IE > version (and if there's no IE version flag, default to IE7). > Is there any reason note to standardize the switch syntax so it's not some IE specific thing, e.g. <!--[ie 8]--> <!--[firefox 3]--> <!--[opera 10]--> > Maybe it would help, however, if instead of assuming that compliance to > HTML5 will mean broken pages, we worked on the assumption that > implementing HTML5 correctly will mean all pages work. That's what the > other browser vendors want, it's what the WHATWG set out to do three years > ago and has been doing ever since, it's what authors want. > > Where HTML5 does break pages, we need to fix the spec. If this means > getElementById() changes to look for 'name' attributes, sobeit. Sometimes > it may be that IE's behaviour *can* change because few enough pages depend > on some edge case that it's ok to change it. Sometimes changes in IE's > behaviour will, in beta tests, show to be utterly impractical, and then we > can use this feedback to fix the spec. In the end, all browsers benefit > from the experience, we improve competition in the browser space, and the > authors and users benefit. > +1 > and I'll even do it without an IE-specific opt in. The fact of the > matter is that today, web developers already serve different content to > > IE and Firefox.Yes, and this is a bad thing. We want to get away from this. If we can make a spec that means that browsers can implement the Web's technologies identically, then we don't need browser-sniffing. +1 -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us
Received on Saturday, 14 April 2007 05:20:46 UTC