- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:17:12 -0500
Ian Hickson wrote: > 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. Over a period of years, I would think that a requirement like the one below could be phased in (presuming that one could be found to work). I have no expectation that Lynx would ever support a real XHTML mode. >> 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. :-( Can you identify three independently produced ones? BTW, I deeply respect the pushback that you give to everybody who thinks they want to have a say in the future of HTML. - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2006 17:17:12 UTC