- From: Alexey Feldgendler <alexey@feldgendler.ru>
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:43:20 +0600
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 05:27:14 +0600, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: >>> ...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. >> >> [...] 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. > You assume that documents targetted at new browsers will not be seen in > old browsers. This isn't the case (if it was, we wouldn't have people trying > to send XHTML to HTML UAs). No, I don't. They will, and old browsers will show either fallback content, if provided, or nothing at all in place of the <new-feature>. I don't see how is this rendering "better" than showing an error message for malformed <new-feature> content. > You also assume that documents that contain the new feature will not be > targetted at older UAs. This is also not the case (if it was, we wouldn't > have things like <noscript>, <noframes>, etc). Maybe they will. If so, they will provide fallback content. -- Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru> [ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
Received on Sunday, 10 December 2006 20:43:20 UTC