- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:51:43 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On 23.01.2011 15:36, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > ... >> B) changing HTTP would break IE, for instance (see >> <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=916> for the parsing >> in <meta>, and <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/ct1.asis> for the >> HTTP header field). It would probably break many other non-browser >> HTTP agents/libraries. > > It would only start breaking IE when people would actually start using it. > ... Aha. >> What I'm really missing is a statement about WHY you would ever >> consider something "required for compatibility with existing content" >> when IE doesn't do it. Please elaborate. > > I did not say that. What I said is that it makes sense to change HTTP It's what the spec says, and why I raised the bug. > because double and single quotes can be used all over the Web Platform > interchangeably. Often though more lenient syntax is more compatible and > authors do not always test in IE. There are places where IE has > negligible market share. We can't change the HTTP syntax without breaking existing clients, such as IE but likely many others. Furthermore, if people not testing in IE is a problem, then the right solution is to converge on the (correct) behavior of IE. Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 23 January 2011 14:52:41 UTC