W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2009

[whatwg] HTML 5 : Misconceptions Documented

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:58:52 +0100
Message-ID: <op.unwusee064w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:18:07 +0100, Mike Wilson <mikewse at hotmail.com>  
wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> The idea is to make it so that browsers don't feel forced to
>> add _any_ non-standard behavior (other than experimental
>> innovations using vendor-prefixed names and stuff).
>
> That's a good thing. Still, seeing this quite non-trivial
> "feature-bug" being standardized, I see the potential for
> making the standard unnecessary complicated if including a lot
> of these legacy quirks.

Well, the Web is unnecessarily complicated and browsers are by extension.  
If we want to allow new browsers to enter the market space, existing  
browsers to be able to compete more effectively, and be able to add  
extensions on top of the existing platform, specifying it and striving for  
convergence is the best bet we have.


> So I wonder what is your process for
> determining if a "quirk" should be included in HTML5 or not?
> Is there any listing of other quirks together with a yes/no
> decision whether to include them in HTML5?

There is no exact list and some of the weird bits are done by other  
specifications.


> Also, what is the general ambition for compatibility with
> legacy content? Until reading this thread I personally thought
> HTML5's legacy compatibility revolved mainly around rendering
> and document validity, but now I realize it has a lot to do with
> script compatibility as well?

Yes, and parsing, and interpreting weird attribute values, etc.


> And please do not take this message as criticism, these are
> just interesting (to me) questions that I couldn't find the
> answer to on the whatwg FAQ.

Feel free to add questions there and answer questions you know the answer  
to.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 17 January 2009 08:58:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:09 UTC