- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:11:23 -0700
- To: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
- Cc: tina@greytower.net, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 02:54 PM, Matt May wrote: > When content is designed to a standard, the user agent is obligated to > adhere to that standard when rendering it (and most if not all now do > this). But poorly-designed content doesn't give you that kind of > contract. A problem, once the content is published, would harm the > user, and thus has to be handled by the user agent. The _fault_, > however, belongs to the author and/or his or her authoring tool. XHTML browsers, which encounter a document claiming to be XHTML but which is not well-formed, _are_ obligated to throw fatal errors by the XML specification. >> If so, any other parts we should have fun with ignoring whilst we're >> at it ? > > Ha ha. Matt, do you agree that a user agent parsing an XHTML document which encounters style rules within <!-- comments --> in the <style> element should completely ignore those style rules? That is what the XHTML and XML specifications demand, but it is clearly not backwards compatible, or standard practice. Should the browser conform with the spec, or should it ignore it here again too? --Kynn > -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com Author, CSS in 24 Hours http://cssin24hours.com Inland Anti-Empire Blog http://blog.kynn.com/iae Shock & Awe Blog http://blog.kynn.com/shock
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 18:05:58 UTC