Re: Support Existing Content

I'm not sure I understand.

If an author is claiming to be writing HTML5 (possibly by  
DOCTYPE="html5" or some such mechanism) why can we not hold the  
author to that?
If the page does not conform, is not well formed, an error is displayed.
During the creation process of the page, the author will see this  
error - long before it is released into the wild - and if they so  
desire (as in they can't be bothered to fix it) they can change what  
they claim to write to "tag-soup" and the browser is free to do it's  
best - albeit different browsers will do different things, but on the  
author's head be it.

I don't see this as breaking backwards compatibility, but it also  
allows for a clear future path to an end point where 90% of the web  
isn't tag-soup rendered completely differently depending on platform,  
browser, or weather changes.


On 1 May 2007, at 21:11, David Hyatt wrote:

> On May 1, 2007, at 7:17 AM, Gareth Hay wrote:
>>> To jeopardise this opportunity by insisting that the
>>> browser use the same parsing/rendering algorithms for legacy
>>> ("tag soup") documents as for new ("well formed") documents
>>> is insane, IMHO.
>>> Philip Taylor
>> I think this is 100% spot on, and far more nicely said than my  
>> previous attempts.
>> I tried to raise the point that UA's can use what they have now to  
>> render backward content, while striving for something better with  
>> HTML5, I wholeheartedly agree with Philip's comments.
> We (Apple) will not implement a new HTML language that is not  
> backwards-compatible with HTML4 and existing real-world content.   
> Breaking backwards compatibility in new versions of the language is  
> a non-starter for us.
> dave
> (

Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 08:17:36 UTC