[whatwg] several messages about XML syntax and HTML5
alexey at feldgendler.ru
Sat Dec 9 06:55:56 PST 2006
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11:44:05 +0600, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> Here's an example. If this:
> <new-feature><erroneous content></new-feature>
> ...displays like this:
> ...text... ...text...
> ...in existing browsers, but like this:
> ...text... ERROR ...text...
> ...in new browsers, then it looks worse in new browsers than old ones.
> Thus, new browsers will want to go back to the way that old browsers
> handled it, so that they don't handle it worse than the (old)
I disagree with you here.
The above is only true if <new-feature> is actually an existing element
which has been given new meaning, i.e. there are legacy documents on the
web containing <new-feature> but using it in some other (old) meaning, or
without a meaning at all (example: xmlns attribute in text/html). That
way, browsers introducing new feature will have to back out because they
would break existing documents. There was an example of this when Gecko
tried to interpret xmlns in text/html.
However, if the <new-feature> is completely new, such as the proposed
<xmldata>, then the only documents containing <new-feature> would be those
that target the new browsers which support it. These documents would use
<new-feature> in the proper sense, and they would only contain errors due
to reak mistakes made by human authors, not because of introduced
incompatibilities. For these documents, ...text... ERROR ...text... is
actually a better rendering than ...text... ...text... because it helps to
locate and fix the error.
Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru>
[ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
More information about the whatwg