- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:05:44 -0700
- To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Cc: W3C HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Apr 19, 2007, at 11:40 PM, Terje Bless wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > mattraymond@earthlink.net (Matthew Raymond) wrote: > >> Chris Wilson wrote: >>> No. We will have our own proprietary, non-invalidating opt-in >>> switch to >>> "really standards as of IEn" mode. >> >> This is even worse, because the switch, by being proprietary, would >> be non-conformant, so a standards-conformant document would have >> to be >> turned into a non-conformant document just to be rendered as a >> standards-conformant document. […] > > It is arguable whether altering the behavior of an UA > implementation based on, say, a “magic” comment — <?x-ms > level="5"?> — in a way that is not explicitly defined in the > standard would affect the implementation's conformance status. If the comment was a syntactically valid comment then I believe it would affect conformance status. And this should be so; otherwise, an implementation that has any arbitrary behavior in the presence of at least one comment would remain conformant. However, embedding a comment that some UAs treat specially would not affect conformance status of the document. Regards, Maciej > > > - -- > I'm [less] than thrilled by the [VM situation]; all sides of > it. I [think] > we need a [fork] in that area so that you guys would stop > stepping on each > others' toes. I'm taking no part in your merry 5-way > clusterfuck -- sort > that mess out between yourselves. -- Alexander > Viro on lkml > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP SDK 3.8.1 > > wj8DBQFGKGBWo/I+siR19ewRAn0FAKDlccavVCdzj2xfbK9gF1FYcPbjTQCgm83V > UZVAR82K4TlSZdzfbGLfhVU=+30D > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 07:06:20 UTC