- From: Ian Hickson <exxieh@bath.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 21:38:14 +0100
- To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Chris Wilson said: >That said, we do the best we can to keep the right model while not breaking >backwards compat. A <P> element is most certainly NOT an empty "paragraph >break entity" to IE - but at the same time, we may not imply </P> tags where >the HTML 4.0 DTD says we should, because our rendering would differ, >possibly critically to some customers, from those legacy systems that treat ><P> as an empty element and don't imply </P>s. Hi Chris! A quick 'wish list' item for IE5, and any other browser (He says, looking at the mozilla.org people...). On some suitably hidden options screen (say, advanced), the following would be really useful: (o) Backwards Compatible 'Tag Soup' Parsing. ( ) Strict SGML parsing. If the second is checked, then upon hitting an error IE5 should stop rendering, close all open elements, insert a suitably red "MARKUP INVALID PAST THIS POINT" message in the tree, and append the rest of the document raw (PLAINTEXT style). Of course, this will require reading the DOCTYPE - and inferring one should it be missing - and parsing according to the correct DTD. (I am day dreaming about the day where we see DTDs shipped with a browser... which are actually used by the parser!) Lynx already has this option, although IMHO it doesn't take it far enough. Also, hopefully, your css parser is now much stricter, and ignores entire statements as it should if invalid characters are met - IOW, it is future-proof, and new @rules and :pseudo-classes won't throw it like they do IE3 and IE4. Good luck, anyway! -- Ian Hickson -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 Info: www.geekcode.com GIT/M/S d->-- s+: a--->? C++(+++)>$ U>*++++ P L+>+++++ E(+)>+++ W+++ N(+) o? K? w@ O- !M V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP>+ t 5+++>++++ X- R+(+++) tv b++(+++) DI++ D++(---)>++++ G>+++ e(*)>+++++ h!()(--) !r y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 1998 13:24:59 UTC