- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:37:56 +0000 (UTC)
Oops, missed this e-mail. On Sat, 21 Aug 2004, Matthew Raymond wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Sat, 31 Jul 2004, Matthew Thomas wrote: > > > On 31 Jul, 2004, at 7:00 AM, Matthew Raymond wrote: > > > > > > > > I recommend that, for HTML documents with the [WF2] doctype, there > > > > should always be a default option selected, regardless if that default > > > > is specified. > > > > > > I like that idea. > > > > I strongly disagree with adding more DOCTYPE-triggered behaviour changes. > > Quirks mode is enough trouble as it is. We don't need yet-more code paths. > > It makes testing hard. :-) > > How, then, do you justify changing the behavior of <label> with regards > to passing events to the associated control? Clearly, with this change > in behavior, browsers rendering documents that use <label> must > determine the type of the document in order to be both HTML 4.01 and WF2 > compliant. It is my interpretation of the two specs that they are not mutually contradictory. However: > Are you suggesting that user agents that are compliant with > WF2 should not be required to be compliant with HTML 4.01? Yes. WF2 changes several things, WA1 a few more. For example, the default "media" for <link> and <style> elements in HTML4 is "screen", and in WA1 it is "all". > For that matter, aren't we deliberately forcing UA vendors to choose > between doctype-triggered behavior and HTML 4.01 nonconformance when the > doctype identifies the document as specifically being HTML 4.01? Not for the <label> case, but for some other cases, yes. However, in almost all of these cases (for example the "media" one above), the vendors have _already_ decided to forego HTML4 compliance, without WHATWG even existing. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2004 04:37:56 UTC