- From: Preston L. Bannister <preston@bannister.us>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:36:55 -0700
- To: Dannii <curiousdannii@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <7e91ba7e0704262136r32b4e880y3cf2a9fb7b8204e0@mail.gmail.com>
On 4/26/07, Dannii <curiousdannii@gmail.com> wrote: > > I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'break'. I don't think it would > be acceptable to change anything that would make 99% of the web unusable. I > do think that it would be okay to change the rendering of those pages, if > they were never being rendered correctly in the first place. > > It depends on the level of changes I think. Trying to keep pixel-perfect > precision with broken pages is ridiculous. If someone was using a table for > layouts with sliced image backgrounds, I don't think we should be forced to > ensure that their slices still line up properly. > You need to be very careful about your working definition of "correctly". An HTML page exactly rendered to the HTML standard is a fantasy - a pleasant fantasy, perhaps, but not something real. Standards are a means to an end, not the end itself. What is real is a page as rendered by on the user's desktop by the browser in use. A page that renders so as the fulfill the user's purpose is "correct". If we change that behavior in a way that interferes this the user ... I would not want to call that bit of unpleasantness "correct". Changing the behavior of existing pages is not nice.
Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 04:37:20 UTC