- From: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
- Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:16:19 +0200
- To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- CC: W3C HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Terje Bless schrieb: >> b) The version number increases bandwidth. > > Lets just dispense with this one right off the bat. In one > proposed syntax this boils down to one single byte. Which wasn't appropriate, since it doesn't trigger standards mode across browsers. >> Terje Bless wrote: >>> If the standard says «This is how you identify a given document as >>> “HTML5” if you are a conforming HTML5 UA.» then there will be no need for >>> one UA to encourage its users to say «If you are the UA from “Vendor >>> Foo”, but no other UA, I want you to use this particular, proprietary, >>> optional behavior.» >> False. […] > > You dispute that having the standard specify a way to achieve > “Goal X” will obviate the need for “Vendor Y” to invent > its own way to achieve that goal? Chris Wilson wrote they want both versioning and propietary opt-ins. >>> You may not have need of a way to unambiguously identify the author's >>> intent to utilize “HTML5”, but one member of the WG has expressed a need >>> for this functionality and it behooves us to listen very carefully and >>> attempt to accommodate this need. >> Tying bugs to a version number doesn't make them go away, > > I suggest you contact the IE team and make that argument to them. They practically agreed on that. >>> Lets reference the Proposed Design Principles: "Solve Real Problems", >> Versioning doesn't solve any real problem, because new version >> numbers don't make user agents compliant, and because it encourages the >> proliferation of new modes in user agents that increase code complexity. > > One of the participants of this working group has pointed out a > real problem that they have, that they need to solve, and which > they would very much like this standard to accommodate. That's a > Real Problem that needs Solving. We are in fact discussing how to solve the problem. Here are my latest unanswered messages: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1046.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1081.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1231.html > Code complexity of implementations is in general a good > argument, but in this case the burden is on the implementors who > actually wish to make use of such behavior. As you so vehemently > point out, only one vendor has expressed a need for this as yet, > so no other implementor of the specification will be burdened > with this additional complexity. No. As the Web gets more fragmented, other vendors are penetrated to support incompatible modes that IE introduces. >> 3) If Microsoft intends to make releases of IE more frequently that the >> W3C releases HTML versions, then they're going to need a switch unrelated >> to the version anyways. > > Perhaps. I believe Chris said he'd be happy with just including > the version in the document type name, so apparently they feel > this would be sufficient. You're mistaken then. --Dao
Received on Saturday, 21 April 2007 12:16:24 UTC