[whatwg] Re: Is this introducing incompatibilities with future W3C work

Jim Ley jim.ley at gmail.com
Fri Jun 25 17:17:47 PDT 2004

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:52:52 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> It is the concensus of the members at the moment to use the proposals sent
> to this list, in so far as they follow the principles laid out in the
> Opera/Mozilla position paper mentioned earlier.

Right, I don't really see that, as you seem to be filtering the
suggestions sent to the list, not taking them straight...

> Well I can't easily address non-existant comments.

Of course not, which is why you need to be more proactive in
soliciting them IMO, otherwise we're not going to get a
rubber-stampable spec, and we're wasting our time here, we should just
wait until it goes to the standards org.

> Exactly how are namespaces in XML different than namespaces in the MIME
> type hierarchy or in the DOM?

There are no namespaces in the DOM.  it's an application environment,
there's nothing in the DOM that states how it should (or should not)
be extended.  the MIME heirachy indeed it's just as holy as in XML,
but you're not suggesting changing any of that, so I've nothing to
complain about.

> > I didn't mention any awful bugs, just awful things - it decides not to
> > render something in response to non-WF XHTML for example!  it's awful.
> Eh? Could you give an example URI?

Take any WF XHTML document and leave off the final </html> you get
awful behaviour in Mozilla, at least you did last time I looked, maybe
they fixed this along with their mime-type sniffing spec violations.
> I've already explained. It's not a matter of bothering to change it. If
> Opera, Mozilla, or Safari add support for a feature in HTML, then
> automatically that feature will be supported in XHTML. They would have to
> go well out of their way to _prevent_ the new feature from working in

Really, but mozilla already go out of the way to prevent rendering of
non-WF docs in XHTML that they don't in the HTML code-paths, Mozilla
provides different DOM behaviour in XHTML to HTML, and that's just the
changes I know about, I don't use XHTML with Mozilla, simply because
XHTML has such ridiculous conformance requirements, but it definately
reacts differently to HTML for me.


More information about the whatwg mailing list