- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 08:03:43 +0100
- To: www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
David Hyatt wrote: > > Ok, let's say we do this. Now an author decides it's time to upgrade > their site to HTML5. They begin (naturally) by adding the doctype to > the top of their HTML file. The entire site turns into a complete > disaster area because half of the tags they used have been eliminated > and the browser is being draconian about ignoring those tags. Author > rolls eyes, yanks the doctype, and forgets about HTML5. Forgets about HTML5, until she comes across the next version of her authoring tool that converts the documents for her, and with a built-in validator that flags up exactly why the page failed in draconian browsers. Or she comes back to HTML5 at a later date when she understands that there's more to HTML5 than a banal doctype change. If authors want to use any standard, they should understand what the new standard actually does/is. Also, as was already hinted at in this thread, it's unlikely that mainstream browsers will actually implement the draconian parsing...and that's fine by me, I wouldn't insist on something like the "non-well-formed XHTML sent as application/xhtml+xml" error handling. P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 07:03:51 UTC