- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 01:07:16 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > > Case in point: > > > > http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2006/12/01/The-White-Pebble > > > > In IE, there's some stray "XHTML HTML" and "XHTML HTML XML" text. This > > isn't acceptable to most people. It certainly isn't something that it > > would make sense to encourage. The worst possible outcome here would > > be for browsers like IE to start trying to parse this "SVG" in > > text/html, because the lack of any sensible parsing rules for it would > > guarentee that we're faced with even more "tag soup", thus undoing all > > the work that the HTML5 spec is trying to do to get us past that. > > You are aware that I like to "tweak" IE users, right? > > With the current technology, this could have been avoided with a single > div and two lines of CSS. And I am most capable of doing that. But that wouldn't help, e.g., Lynx users. > In the longer run, I do believe that an architected simple rule like: > > xmlns attributes are invalid on HTML elements except html, and > when found on unrecognized attributes imply style="display:none" > unless you recognize the value of this attribute. > > ... would channel those with insane desires to make extensions into > doing so in a manner that is harmless. Such a rule might take a year or > two to get widely deployed, but the worst feet-draggers won't be > affected any worse than they were in the days when <table> was young. There are millions of documents that would be "broken" by such a rule, so browser vendors couldn't actually deploy that, sadly. :-( -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2006 17:07:16 UTC