- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:46:54 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > > > > It is the concensus of the members at the moment to use the proposals sent > > to this list, in so far as they follow the principles laid out in the > > Opera/Mozilla position paper mentioned earlier. > > Right, I don't really see that, as you seem to be filtering the > suggestions sent to the list, not taking them straight... I am taking all the input sent to this list, including my own, and incorporating into the spec what I believe to be the solutions having the most support and most closely adhering to the group's principles. > > Well I can't easily address non-existant comments. > > Of course not, which is why you need to be more proactive in soliciting > them IMO, otherwise we're not going to get a rubber-stampable spec, and > we're wasting our time here, we should just wait until it goes to the > standards org. I don't believe anyone (apart form you) has suggested we try to get this work "rubberstamped". We will, however, be soliciting further comments from a wider audience once we publish a call-for-comments snapshot this weekend, as described in our charter. >> Exactly how are namespaces in XML different than namespaces in the MIME >> type hierarchy or in the DOM? > > There are no namespaces in the DOM. it's an application environment, > there's nothing in the DOM that states how it should (or should not) > be extended. There isn't anything in the Namespaces in XML specification that states how it should (or should not) be extended either. > The MIME heirachy indeed it's just as holy as in XML, but you're not > suggesting changing any of that, so I've nothing to complain about. WHATWG's proposed specifications are co-opting the meaning of the "text/html" MIME type just as they are co-opting the meaning of the "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" namespace. There really is no difference. > > > I didn't mention any awful bugs, just awful things - it decides not to > > > render something in response to non-WF XHTML for example! it's awful. > > > > Eh? Could you give an example URI? > > Take any WF XHTML document and leave off the final </html> you get > awful behaviour in Mozilla, at least you did last time I looked, maybe By "awful" I presume you mean "standards compliant". The parsing change is the one change I explicitly mentioned was different between XHTML and HTML processing. It's amusing to note that this is the part of my e-mail that you decided to ignore in your reply, especially in light of your accusations that I was ignoring your feedback. In any case, the difference in processing HTML and XHTML that you highlight above is, as I previously mentioned, one of the few differences in the codepaths for processing HTML and XHTML that Opera, Safari and Mozilla have. It is not an argument for introducing _more_ differences in the processing. > they fixed this along with their mime-type sniffing spec violations. Do you have any bug numbers for the "mime-type sniffing spec violations", or, failing that, any URIs demonstrating them? > > I've already explained. It's not a matter of bothering to change it. If > > Opera, Mozilla, or Safari add support for a feature in HTML, then > > automatically that feature will be supported in XHTML. They would have to > > go well out of their way to _prevent_ the new feature from working in > > XHTML. > > Really, but mozilla already go out of the way to prevent rendering of > non-WF docs in XHTML that they don't in the HTML code-paths, Mozilla > provides different DOM behaviour in XHTML to HTML, and that's just the > changes I know about, I don't use XHTML with Mozilla, simply because > XHTML has such ridiculous conformance requirements, but it definately > reacts differently to HTML for me. Yes, I already explained this: http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2004-June/000584.html The parser has nothing to do with the majority of the body of code that implements HTML and XHTML, and the DOM differences are inconsequential. My point still stands. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 25 June 2004 17:46:54 UTC