Re: The argument for |bugmode|

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