- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:13:05 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Apr 15, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > 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. Likewise on our part. What is the advantage of the change that would make it worth breaking sites? - Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 19:13:49 UTC