It’s just data

Form Follows Function

Chris Wilson: So, we’re having a fun thread on the HTML WG.  I’m explaining what Microsoft must do, given the half-billion or so users that rely on us to not break their web experience.  A certain contingent disagrees with me (okay) and seems to want to beat it out of me (not okay).

The discussion is focused on nailing down a syntax for versioning the web (e.g. <!DOCTYPE html5>) before agreeing to a set of specific semantics associated with that syntax (i.e., things like foo will behave as foo1 if X is specified, otherwise it will behave as foo2).

There are all sorts of ways to version the web, varying from Content-Type to User-Agent, to DOCTYPE, to version attribute, to meta tag to structured comments...

IMHO, the way forward is for the group to provisionally agree that one or more of these may ultimately be needed to be implemented by one or more vendors, and then move forward trying to triage specific proposals for semantics.  The root issue is a difference in perception as to the relative sizes of these three buckets: things IE can change without breaking the web, things that won’t require changes to IE, and changes which would break the web.

Chris’s main point boils down to “the set of items that can be safely placed in the first bucket isn’t as large as you might think”, whereas one of the primary considerations of the WHATWG so far has been to maximize the second bucket to the extent that it is sane to do so.  While nobody seems interested in placing things intentionally in that third bucket, if due to some oversight some specific items which were intended for the second bucket missed their mark and either landed into the first or the third, then building and working an issues list of precisely those items would in turn shed some significant light onto what versioning, if any, will be required.

I think Chris Wilson has been repeatedly asked about that third bucket, but he’s saying it’s impossible to tell what will be in as they will know after shipping because of all the intranet applications.

Posted by Anne van Kesteren at

If I were a member of that workgroup (which I am not), I would suggest that the versioning question is a red herring.

If the third set is known to be empty, then there is no need for it.

If the third set is known to be non-empty by virtue of having a (possibly non-exhaustive) set of issues identified, the group should set out to work those issues.  One possible outcome will be the identified need for a way to identify the version.  If that’s the outcome, then there would be no controversy, as the justification has already been made.

If the third set is has no known issues, but any given vendor fears that post-deployment there may be some identified, then by all means, let all such vendors identify vendor specific mechanisms for selecting whether spec compliance on that feature is desired.

Net: I’m suggesting that the issues list should drive the discussion.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Chris is really hammering home the “Don’t Break the Web” mantra. He always capitalises the words too. Nobody wants to break the web. I flinch slightly every time I read those words. If Microsoft want to stay in the browser market it would be easier for everyone if they rebranded Internet Explorer as described in a comment on his blog.

Posted by Dean Edwards at

links for 2007-04-17

fotowoosh - What if you could transform 2D into 3D? writeup: [link] (tags: 3-D VRML) Einstein was right: space and time bend The joint mission between Nasa and Stanford University uses four of the most perfect spheres - ultra...

Excerpt from All in a days work... at

Add your comment