- From: Joe D'Andrea <jdandrea@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 15:36:53 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
Kornel Lesinski writes: > Many authors don't have slightest idea that there's something wrong with > their code. This can be solved - make standard IE distribution warn about > deprecated features and problems exposed by invalid code. [ ... ] Hear hear! If errors can be flagged, so can warnings. > When a potentially important bug is planned to be axed in a future version > of IE, you can display more prominent warning in an earlier version. Then > nobody will get surprised when next version comes out and probably most > websites will be fixed by then. +1. Surprises can be mitigated. I say frequent, pro-active education (within the user agent, online and elsewhere) works wonders. Meanwhile, in response to Boris Zbarsky who wrote: > Chris, my point was that things are not black and white here. It's not > the case that any change you make would break a large number of sites. > For example, if current IE behavior given a certain input is to crash, > then it seems likely that you can change that aspect of IE behavior > without breaking sites. Chris Wilson replied: > No one expects crashes. Aye. > On the other hand, a bunch of people did > expect that we didn't implement child selectors in CSS. A bunch > of people did expect that we didn't understand how overflow is > supposed to work. I never _expected_ either of those. Rather, I came to begrudgingly _accept_ these and other anomalies as a necessary evil of user agent co-existence, and only once it became clear there were no IE updates in sight. That was a _very_ hard pill to swallow, let me tell you. In fact ... it's interesting to note that the pill in question largely (dare I say completely?) concerned CSS rendering issues, not HTML. -- Joe D'Andrea www.joesapt.net
Received on Saturday, 14 April 2007 21:06:45 UTC