- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:07:30 -0700
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Daniel Schattenkirchner <crazy-daniel@gmx.de> wrote: > Simon Pieters wrote: >> >> Why not? If you convince Mozilla to change then the spec will most likely >> change with it. > > I found 8 sites using this doctype. Three of them are broken: > > http://www.ascypaa.org/ > http://www.extremerestraints.com/ > http://www.kk5im.com/ > > Five of them work equally good: > > http://premiervacationrentalsllc.com > http://www.diagnostik.pl/ > http://www.fcbayernmuenchen-frauenfussball.de/ > http://www.sylvansoftware.com/ > http://www.burlaplute.com/ > > In the view of a browser vendor, that's -3. > > But maybe someone from Mozilla or WebKit could comment? I don't want to spam > their Bug databases even more. Erm, if 3 out of 8 sites that use this doctype would break over the suggested change, I would say that I'm heavily in favor of not making the suggested change for this doctype. / Jonas (mozilla developer)
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 19:08:22 UTC