[whatwg] Re: Transition from Legacy to Native rendering

Jim Ley jim.ley at gmail.com
Sat Jun 26 12:06:43 PDT 2004

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:52:49 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> > Also please remember you cannot talk about condtional comment
> > differences being a compliance issue, conditional comments are not
> > outlawed in ECMA 262.
> What on Earth has ECMA-262 got to do with anything here?

It seems we're talking about different sorts of conditional comments,
I'm talking about JScript ones not they HTML-esque version also
available to IE.  The problem with those is that they're not available
in IE4 which also does the attribute reflection, that may not be a
problem in other peoples perception of course, but it is in mine.  I
don't know much about failure scenarios of these comments though, so
couldn't comment on their suitability otherwise.

> > If not, and it's fine for "conformant UA's" to include that, then it's
> > just as fine for everyone else to include other logical extensions.
> I am baffled why, if you think it's fine for everyone to include logical
> extensions, why you are "disgusted with Opera, Apples and Mozilla
> involvement in this deliberate subversion of internet standards".

I'd be happy with them including extensions, but this isn't what
they're doing, they're trying to modify the actual specifications.  if
they simply said "we support this" then that would be fine, but
they're trying to make out it is a standard and actually part of XHTML
etc. is the problem I have.

> Not a forwards-compatible choice if that attribute was defined as a
> boolean or a number, though, is it.

But 100% compatible if it's defined as a String - and little is lost
if a conversion is forced, in ecmascript it would take moments to
perform the conversion, and would likely be happening automatically in
most uses in any case.  (if (el.chicken==1)  works the same...)


More information about the whatwg mailing list