W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: HTML version issue summary?

From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:26:21 -0700
Message-Id: <6A43D294-172B-4298-B0F6-C50CACB43A92@apple.com>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>

On Apr 24, 2007, at 6:21 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> On Apr 24, 2007, at 6:16 PM, David Hyatt wrote:
>> Versioning is like a vendor-neutral opt-in hook.  Browsers can  
>> then use their own opt-in hooks and use the vendor-neutral hook  
>> once they are confident in their compliance with the spec.   
>> Theoretically IE might do something like this with my proposal:
>> IE 8 ships with partial HTML5 support, uses custom opt-in #1
>> IE8.1 ships with more complete HTML5 support, uses custom opt-in #2
>> IE9 is the point where MSFT decides they've nailed it, now they  
>> use the HTML5 version as opt-in #3
> Are you proposing that IE8 and IE8.1 should not treat content that  
> had the HTML5 doctype but no custom opt-in as HTML4.01?

I am saying that IE8 and 8.1 in my scenario above would treat content  
with the HTML5 doctype but no custom opt-in as HTML4.01 yes.

> That would require every HTML5 document on the web to include the  
> IE-proprietary opt-in, even if they didn't depend on IE quirks.

To work with IE is going to require the opt-in, yes.  However since  
IE would presumably never drop support for any of these opt-in  
switches, the document would only need to include the opt-in for the  
oldest version of IE that they wish to support.

This is all hypothetical.  I don't think we should dictate to MSFT  
how they should opt in other than to say that if we *do* have a  
version identified via a doctype or attribute that IE should not use  
that as an opt-in until they are prepared to fully support that version.

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 01:26:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:19 UTC