- From: Bill Mason <w3c@accessibleinter.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:35:27 -0700
- To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Chris Wilson wrote: > I want to explicitly state - I neither asked for nor want the HTML WG to specify a "bugmode" attribute in HTML. I expect bugward-compatibility markers to be IE-proprietary, and I hope we can get rid of them over time. I DO want the HTML WG to recognize that they cannot be ripped out today (or for the next several years). I am now completely at a loss as to where this is going. If the expectation is that bugward-compatibility markers will be browser-proprietary, what is the benefit then of your proposal that the HTML5 doctype be <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "html5">? [1] As I'm interpreting what I've read (and I reserve the right to be in error), the browser will support proprietary markers of whatever form to tell the browser to what degree of "improved standards compliance" [1] the author of a given page is opting into and thus how to render the page. If that is true, what information is the browser going to get from the proposed DOCTYPE beyond: 1) A trigger to render the page in the current general "standards mode". 2) A trigger that this page is coded in HTML5 so the browser should look for any bugward-compatibility markers that are in the code and adjust the rendering of the page accordingly. And can't that also be accomplished by having the WHATWG proposed <!DOCTYPE html> act as: 1) A trigger to render the page in the current general "standards mode". 2) A trigger that this page is coded in HTML5 or better so the browser should look for any bugward-compatibility markers that are in the code and adjust the rendering of the page accordingly. My viewpoint is that if there is a commitment being made now that in HTML5+ pages IE will be looking for and relying on markers to tell it how to render the page, the presence of version information in the DOCTYPE is superfluous beyond knowing that the HTML version is 5 or greater. The markers perform the same function regardless of the lack of versioning in the DOCTYPE. [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1071.html -- Bill Mason Accessible Internet w3c@accessibleinter.net http://accessibleinter.net/
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:35:55 UTC