- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:52:13 -0400
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: 'Masayasu Ishikawa' <mimasa@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 11:12, David Orchard wrote: > html 2.0 rfc 1866 contains the following text in 4.2.1 Undeclared Markup > Handling > > To facilitate experimentation and interoperability between > implementations of various versions of HTML, the installed base of > HTML user agents supports a superset of the HTML 2.0 language by > reducing it to HTML 2.0: markup in the form of a start-tag or end- > tag, whose generic identifier is not declared is mapped to nothing > during tokenization. Undeclared attributes are treated similarly. The > entire attribute specification of an unknown attribute (i.e., the > unknown attribute and its value, if any) should be ignored. > > I assert that this is the "must ignore" rule for elements and "should > ignore" for attributes. I don't see "must" in there anywhere. > During the time of the most innovation was happening in HTML, from 2. to 4., > the must ignore rule was in effect. It went back to 1.x, during the introduction of <img> and such. But any implementation that ignored <form> did so at peril of becoming totally irrelevant. There's a valuabel pattern of ignoring stuff in there, but it does no good to call it "must ignore", and to endorse it without reservation is a disservice to our readership. Noting the downside is important. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2003 11:51:54 UTC