- From: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:25:04 +0200
- To: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- CC: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
Matthew Raymond schrieb: > Jeff Schiller wrote: >> I guess the theory here is that Microsoft has the farthest to go to >> "get it right"? Therefore, in the first version of IE that supports >> any form of HTML5, the web authors better _really_ be sure that they >> want to trigger HTML5 processing in IE (above and beyond the standard >> DOCTYPE/version attribute mechanism)? > > If support for HTML5 is so bad in IE that HTML 4.01 rendering is > preferable, I think most people would rather use HTML 4.01. However, I > just don't envision a scenario where IE's handling of HTML5 is so bad > that you want IE to treat compliant HTML5 documents as HTML 4.01. You could use the proprietary opt-in then. Thing is, IE.next will handle HTML5 documents significantly worse than IE.next+1. If IE.next uses the HTML5 doctype as an opt-in, that will render that doctype useless for IE.next+1 as a trigger for real standards rendering. That's similar to the current situation. We want to avoid that. > It > would be market share suicide. Think about it: Why would anyone depend > on a product from a company that can't support standards even when their > head browser developer is the chair of the working group that developed > the standard in question? Um. 1. Nobody wants Microsoft to not support standards. We want them to do it in a sane, future-proof way. 2. You're ignoring that Dave proposed to support opt-ins to the new but not yet finished rendering mode. 3. People did depend on broken IE versions for years. Go figure. --Dao
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 11:25:14 UTC