- From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:58:05 -0500
- To: public-html@w3.org
Sorry, I meant to send this to both Ian and the list so I'm re-sending On 4/17/07, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Jeff Schiller wrote: > > > > Now I know that my example is probably pretty contrived, but at least > > in this instance, it seems there is no way, as Ian says in [7] to > > "absolutely ensure that HTML5 is compatible with all today's content" > > because different browsers did different things and "today's content" > > may have relied on one browser or the other browser's behavior. > > But does it? That's what matters. Is there content today that _relies_ on > the "_parent" value being ignored when placed inside an <object>? > > If not, then we can change the behaviour safely. If there is, then Firefox > and Opera are likely breaking those pages, and we should change the spec. > I don't think this is what you intended by this - but it sounds like it's ok to break content relying on Firefox and Opera behavior but not to break content relying on IE behavior. Again, I know this one specific example is really only hypothetical because I don't have resources to look at every single web page out there to determine what percentage relies on Brand X or Y or Z behavior. But I guess I was trying to illustrate that such situations do exist and how will you know you've researched and captured them all? And even if you can be reasonably confident - what is the harm in introducing a "5" into the DOCTYPE somewhere? If HTML6 actually ends up being perfectly backwards compatible with HTML5, then I don't see a harm in putting a "6" in the DOCTYPE when it gets released - if things are truly backwards compatible, then it just means that anything 5 or higher in the DOCTYPE means "the one true and pure standards mode for all browsers", but it does give a hint to web authors/maintainers that this content might have some features that were introduced in HTML6.
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 04:58:08 UTC