- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 10:49:57 +0200
On Thu, 24 May 2007 19:07:58 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg <st at isoc.nl> wrote: > At 10:02 +0200 UTC, on 2007-05-23, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> On Wed, 23 May 2007 04:05:26 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg <st at isoc.nl> >> wrote: >>> I'm confused about "in all modes" in this context. I thouht the idea >>> was >>> to do away with modes altogether? >> >> Standards and quirks mode I meant. > > But I thought the idea was that there is to be one HTML, with such > well-defined error handling for UAs that there will be no more modes > except The One Mode. Well, this would remove the need for a "mode-check" here. However, there are probably cases where we can't reduce the differences between quirks and standards mode (and almost standards mode...) and therefore we have to live with at least those modes. The main idea however, is that we don't want require UAs to implement a versioning mechanism that would require different engines. I also think we should strive for reducing the amount of differences between standards and quirks mode and at some point define quirks mode so UAs can simply implement it based on a specification as opposed to some never ending expensive reverse engineering story. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 25 May 2007 01:49:57 UTC