- From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:14:07 +0000
- To: Sam Kuper <sam.kuper@uclmail.net>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Kuper wrote: > 2008/10/31 Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk [snip] > Well, the second option there was never conformant, so it doesn't make > sense to mark it as deprecated. The first option wasn't advised or, > really, mentioned at all in HTML 4.x, so it doesn't make sense to mark > that deprecated either (there's nothing to mark). I don't follow your logical here, Sam. > Please could you read those proposals? I have, Sam, otherwise I would not feel in a position to respond. > and the legacy mode of operation then > defined to produce optimal results for whichever > group predominates. > > > Leaving the rest to render wrongly, presumably. Exactly. > I sure wouldn't be happy to have a "legacy" mode implemented in browsers > which would potentially apply an inappropriate rendering algorithm to > 49% of the existing Web. That is exactly the situation with the current generation of browsers; I genuinely fail to see why a new generation go out of its way to improve on current behaviour for legacy documents. Philip TAYLOR
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 14:14:50 UTC