- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:57:05 +0300
- To: public-html@w3.org
2013-09-12 18:43, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 9/12/13 2:36 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: >> Thanks. It indeed describes the effect of the attribute. I wonder if it >> is intentional that 11.2 does not refer to the description (in this or >> similar cases). > > It is: people shouldn't be using these things. That’s what I thought, but it makes life more difficult to people working with legacy code (either old code or old software that generates old-style code). There are good reasons not to rewrite legacy code or patch (fix) it, as long as it works, but some changes may be necessary. So it is relevant to to have convenient access to information that tells which of the obsolete features actually work or are required to work in browsers. When working with old code (maintaining and modifying, not rewriting it), you can leave e.g. <font> tags as they are, but you need to consider what to do with <basefont> – if you know that no support is required any more, or that support is now forbidden (and, as a matter of fact, support has been dropped from modern browsers, including IE 10). Currently, both <font> and <basefont> are listed as obsolete, and you need to scan through the Rendering section to see their real status, regarding requirements on browsers. > Is IE non-conforming because it keeps supporting <bgsound>? > > Yes, just like any UA that supports a tag that's not in the spec at all. I’d still like to see where this is stated. User agents are required to process elements and attributes in certain ways, but where does the spec forbid them from doing anything additional with them? As I tried to point out, the spec strongly discourages vendor extensions, but it does not forbid them. In 2.2.3, a document using vendor extensions is declared non-conforming. Wouldn’t this be the place to say that a user agent supporting vendor extensions is non-conforming too, if this is what is meant? It says: “New element names should not be created.” By saying “should” and not “shall”, this seems to mean that a browser supporting an element not mentioned in the spec at all may be conforming. It sounds illogical that a browser is not allowed to support <bgsound> but is allowed to support <backgroundsound>. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 08:57:28 UTC