- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:40:26 -0800
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
On Jan 18, 2013, at 7:21 AM, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote: > On 18/01/2013 13:17, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> Trivially easy but bad in terms of the Degrade Gracefully Design >> Principle (which might not matter in this case in the Rapid Release >> world). > > There are some theoretical bad cases one could imagine but no cases as > bad as the spec being changed to break the existing documents using > these entities including the document that _defined_ them. (The MathML2 > spec) Which in its XHTML form is a well formed document and was parsed > as such by any browser that could handle mathml at all until they > changed to match the unfortunately drafted xhtml parse rules in HTML5 > drafts. So current browsers reject the entire document as not well formed. > > > That was a simple straight spec bug that broke existing content and it > should have been fixed when reported. Since it wasn't fixed then it > should be fixed now, better late than never. Can you give a specific example? In particular, URL to a piece of existing content that broke, and browser and version that used to process it as intended before adopting the HTML5 spec rules? My understanding was that the HTML5 spec rules just matched what essentially all browsers already did for XHTML/XML parsing. If that's not the case, it would be useful new information to know the details. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 18 January 2013 19:40:55 UTC