- From: Alexey Feldgendler <alexey@feldgendler.ru>
- Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:55:56 +0600
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11:44:05 +0600, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > Here's an example. If this: > > ...text... > <new-feature><erroneous content></new-feature> > ...text... > > ...displays like this: > > ...text... ...text... > > ...in existing browsers, but like this: > > ...text... ERROR ...text... > > ...in new browsers, then it looks worse in new browsers than old ones. > Thus, new browsers will want to go back to the way that old browsers > handled it, so that they don't handle it worse than the (old) > competition. I disagree with you here. The above is only true if <new-feature> is actually an existing element which has been given new meaning, i.e. there are legacy documents on the web containing <new-feature> but using it in some other (old) meaning, or without a meaning at all (example: xmlns attribute in text/html). That way, browsers introducing new feature will have to back out because they would break existing documents. There was an example of this when Gecko tried to interpret xmlns in text/html. However, if the <new-feature> is completely new, such as the proposed <xmldata>, then the only documents containing <new-feature> would be those that target the new browsers which support it. These documents would use <new-feature> in the proper sense, and they would only contain errors due to reak mistakes made by human authors, not because of introduced incompatibilities. For these documents, ...text... ERROR ...text... is actually a better rendering than ...text... ...text... because it helps to locate and fix the error. -- Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru> [ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
Received on Saturday, 9 December 2006 06:55:56 UTC