- From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:05:26 -0700
- To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "wri-talk@webrepair.org" <wri-talk@webrepair.org>
Sander Tekelenburg wrote: >Do you agree with my earlier analysis[*] that a proprietary switch would make >it much harder for authors to produce conforming web pages? If so, can you >explain why this should be acceptable? I guess I don't know what you mean by a conforming switch. >> (If there are no breaking changes, we don't need to worry about this. >>That is unlikely to happen for quite a while.) > >I can't follow. "breaking changes" in what? "worry" by whom about what? Breaking change in our behavior. Changes that cause differences in rendering, object model or interactive behavior. >> I want the HTML spec to have version - e.g. in DOCTYPE - because I 1) think >>it's insane to build a format with no version identifier, and 2) will >>opportunistically use this to automatically turn on any future opt-ins when >>such a version identifier becomes popular. > >I'm afraid I cannot follow this either. Could you elaborate please? (Not just >for me. I get the impression that your standpoint isn't clear to quite a few >people. If it would become clear to more people there'd be a better chance we >can work towards a solution, instead of proposing solutions based on >misunderstanding of the situation.) Part 1 or 2? -C
Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 22:05:50 UTC