Re: The argument for |bugmode| (was Re: If we have versioning, it should be in an attribute, not the doctype)

On 19/04/2007, at 7:15 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2007, at 19:33, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> I want to explicitly state - I neither asked for nor want the HTML  
>> WG to specify a "bugmode" attribute in HTML.
> Would you like a conformance checker to mark whatever IE-version  
> switch you are going to use as non-conforming? (You have very  
> clearly stated the intention to have an opt-in switch in future IE  
> versions.)
> If you would like the switch to be marked non-conforming, do you  
> expect Web designers to accept it?

Many have already said they won't accept a version switch at all, or  
at least not one that they would be forced to use.  I think a  
conformance checker complaining about a non-standard attribute  
designed for explicitly indicating reliance on non-standard behaviour  
would be the least of such authors problems.  It might even be  
counter productive to not raise an error for such an attribute, since  
it would imply that UA-specific-authoring is somehow endorsed.

So, accepting the fact that we have no choice in a bug mode opt-in in  
IE, I am in favour of a non-standard bugmode attribute (or whatever  
it's called) on the condition that it is explicitly treated as an opt- 
in for older, buggy behaviour, rather than an opt-in for the latest  
standards mode.  The default must be always-standards mode.

I would also recommend that such an attribute use a simple value that  
indicates the browser version number, like conditional comments.

e.g. <html bugmode="IE7">

Although I think this is implied, opt-ins for future versions of IE  
should still trigger the latest mode available in older versions of  
IE.  This would be needed for forwards compatibility.

e.g. <html bugmode="IE9"> would opt-in to the latest standards mode  
available in of IE8 and IE9, and then keep using IE9 mode for IE10+.

Lachlan Hunt

Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 03:15:02 UTC