Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Ian Hickson]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Mihai Sucan wrote:
> 
> > There's no way to advertise the document as HTML 5, and it's certainly 
> > not the purpose of the specification to do so.
> 
> This is a problem.  It is especially a problem now that the W3C is 
> working on their version of HTML 5.  When I asked Ian Hickson how WHATWG 
> would handle divergence in the W3C spec [1], he said he "intended to 
> make every effort to keep the two in sync." [2] While I appreciate his 
> effort and I fully believe that he will do his best, we are dealing with 
> a body (i.e. the W3C) who have a history of stubbornness and 
> unwillingness to work with important members of the community. [3] The 
> future is still undecided, but I don't think it is a good idea to 
> operate under the assumption that the W3C will copy and paste the entire 
> WHATWG HTML 5 spec.
>
> [1] http://blog.whatwg.org/w3c-restarts-html-effort#comment-2020
> [2] http://blog.whatwg.org/w3c-restarts-html-effort#comment-2022
> [3] http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2006/08/14/angry-indeed/

Right now the two groups are using exactly the same spec, byte-for-byte, 
just with a different header.


> Even if DTDs are non-normative and antiquated in the HTML 5 spec, it at 
> least provides some method for authors to indicate their intentions.  
> If my intention was to write a document conforming to HTML 3.2, I can 
> use the HTML 3.2 DTD to tell anyone in the future that I was using a 
> certain set of elements.

Wouldn't simply the act of using those elements be enough to say which 
elements you used?


> If browsers pay no attention to DTDs, as WHATWG has said time and again, 
> browsers must be rendering "the latest and greatest" markup.  If in 50 
> years, the "i" element has been out of use for 40 years, and browsers 
> stop rendering that element and validators throw errors on that element, 
> the document still conforms to the DTD.  It's not the author's fault 
> that the document doesn't perform the way it intended.  Ideally, the 
> browser should care about DTDs.

If you're arguing that browsers in 50 years should have two modes, one 
with the obsolete  element not supported, and one with the obsolete  
element supported (to support old content), why wouldn't it be better to 
simply have one rendering mode, which supported ?


> The WHATWG HTML 5 spec provides no way to specify what version / fork of 
> HTML the author intended to use.  Even if browsers don't pay attention, 
> I think it is a shame that there is no way to specify (if for nothing 
> else, to future-proof documents).  I blogged about this in more detail. 
> 
> http://robertdot.org/2007/03/08/html-5-whatwg-versus-w3c.html

I don't understand why it matters what version you're using. Or, for that 
matter, how most authors are supposed to work out which version they're 
using.


> It seems the WHATWG is staunchly against DTDs, even if it has an 
> appropriate use (e.g. emails in this thread talking about XML entities).

It's perfectly possible to use DTDs and entities when using XML with 
XHTML5. Nothing in the spec prevents that. (Browsers somewhat prevent it, 
since they don't fetch DTDs, though.)


> I've mulled over this awhile.  Since DTDs aren't normative in browsers, 
> perhaps a "link" element with a "rel=specification" and an 
> "href=http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/"; (for example) 
> would be a new way to say, "this is the specification I used to create 
> this document."  It is easier to remember than the DOCTYPE DTDs on 
> pervious versions of HTML, and it is much more human-readable than DTDs.  
> It addresses my concerns, and doesn't use DTDs.

Why does it matter which spec you used?

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Ian Hickson]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Robert Brodrecht wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Matthew Ratzloff wrote:
> > 
> > The seem to serve the purpose.  If there are two HTML 5 
> > specifications, browser makers can come together to decide which one 
> > to support by default when no DOCTYPE is present.  Developers who 
> > would prefer the alternate standard could use the appropriate DOCTYPE.
> 
> Browsers render in quirksmode by default.  That's been established.  At 
> this point WHATWG has already rejected DTDs in DOCTYPE and seems pretty 
> set on not including it.  I myself would rather have some type of 
> versioning (DTD or otherwise) in the DOCTYPE.  All I've heard from 
> WHATWG is that they don't really even like the DOCTYPE.  If browsers 
> didn't use DOCTYPE as the standards mode switch, DOCTYPE probably 
> wouldn't even be in WHATWG's HTML 5.
> 
> I'm sure most people have heard the saying "Choose your battles."  
> Fighting for DTDs or some other type of versioning in the DOCTYPE in 
> WHATWG's spec is not a fight that can be won as far as I can tell.  
> Having some method to tell people what spec an author is using can be 
> won.

It's not that it's a fight that can't be won, it's just that the arguments 
I've heard from people about why they think we shouldn't have versioning 
information are more convincing than the arguments from those who think we 
should have versioning information.

(The arguments against versioning appeal to evidence that having 
versioning actively harms the Web and threatens the ability for 
competiting browsers to exist; the arguments in favour tend to be more 
about solving theoretical problems. It's an easy choice, really.)


> If there is no versioning system, there is no way to specify an 
> "alternate standard."

Whatever happens, there'll only be one successful HTML standard on the 
Web. We don't need a technical means to chose between them, the market 
will do that for us.

In any case, we just have the one standard right now (since the W3C and 
WHATWG are working on the same document).

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Ian Hickson]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Elliotte Harold wrote:
> 
> What are those of us who wish to use XML tools on our documents supposed 
> to use? We will need a real DTD at some point, to declare the entities 
> if nothing else. We will not be able to use .

XML allows you to use, e.g.:

   

This is an XML feature, though, unrelated to XHTML5.


> I know some browser-centric folks here just hate DTDs and schemas of any 
> kind; but we will need them, even if the browsers don't. We will create 
> and use them, even if there's no normative DTD in the spec.

That's entirely allowed by XML, indeed.


> One thing that's struck me in working with the spec over the last few 
> days is just how hard it is to follow the various content models, and 
> how much simpler most of them would be to read if they were described in 
> a RELAX NG schema or a DTD.

Having spoken to people who have actually used RELAX NG to describe them, 
I'm not sure that it really would be easier.

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Ian Hickson]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Jorgen Horstink wrote:
> 
> As far as I understand it, the new DOCTYPE switch is meant to 'tell' to 
> browser the document follows the HTML5 specification.

No, the new DOCTYPE is merely meant to trigger standards mode (as opposed 
to quirks mode).


> HTML5 is set up to be backwards compatible with HTML4 documents. The 
> opposite does not hold. There must be at least one new DOCTYPE to 'tell' 
> the browser HTML5 is being served.

No, the opposite does in fact hold. It shouldn't matter whether the 
document is HTML5 or HTML4 or earlier; they all have the same processing 
rules, given by the HTML5 spec.

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Ian Hickson]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
> 
> Other browsers can also use  as an indication to stop 
> applying certain hacks which make them diverge from standards in favor 
> of interoperability with IE.

I've specified DOCTYPE sniffing in the spec now, and that indeed covers 
this suggestion.

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Ian Hickson]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
>
> (I sent this to the list already, but I think it didn't appear because I 
> sent it with the wrong e-mail address.)
> 
> I'm not sure if it has been discussed earlier, but after seeing Chris 
> Wilson's talk on «Browser Wars Episode II: Attack of the DOMs»[1] I 
> think it's pretty obvious that Internet Explorer needs a new switch of 
> some sort, to be allowed to implement and fix the DOM, JavaScript, 
> CSS1-3 etc. without breaking backward compatibility. At least that's 
> what Chris Wilson says.

As I explained on public-html, though, such a switch to introduce yet 
another rendering mode would, on the long term (with this practice 
repeated with each browser version, as Microsoft have indicated is their 
intention), prevent competition in the browser space. That's the worst 
possible outcome from a standards perspective.

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0319.html

(The word processor document space is an example of how bad things can get 
if we go down this road. It is basically impossible to compete with Word 
today because of the myriad of undocumented formats it supports.)


> And I agree. Internet Explorer needs a new switch. So I thought, what 
> about using:
> 
>   
> 
> as the new switch?

That would be, IMHO, disastrous. But, there's nothing we can do to stop 
Microsoft from inventing yet more rendering modes, nor anything we can do 
to stop them using "".

We can, however, make it a violation of the specs, and indeed that has now 
been done (quirks mode and DOCTYPE sniffing is part of the spec).

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Asbjørn Ulsberg]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:25:08 +0100, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Are there particular parts that overlap between IE's DOM and the
standard DOM where IE's implementation is non-compliant?


Several, yeah. Most important is the events model.


Thanks for pointing it out. The handling of whitespace is also quite  
different.



Oh, without overlap everything would be fine and dandy. However,
consider how many scripts would break with just the simple change of
including all newline/whitespace text nodes in the DOM... Sure, any
sensibly coded script won't break because of this sense because it's
already coded so that a single piece of code handles both cases. But
everything that does a browser check and forks will suddenly fail. And
I think we all know that the vast majority of scripts out there aren't
sensibly coded.


Exactly. IE needs a new DOM.

--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[James Graham]

Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:33:54 +0100, Simon Pieters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:


The only way to not break 50% of the web is to invent a new mode that 
gives the IE developers a blank sheet they can begin to draw on.


FWIW, I think the 50% figure is incorrect. According to [1], 90% of 
the web use quirks mode.


Although it's great to get the right numbers on the table, it isn't 
really relevant for this discussion. If the IE team feels an obligation 
to maintain backwards compatibility with CSS1Compat and thus has a need 
to introduce another rendering switch, then that's what matters. The 
discussion is then how this should be enabled, and my proposal is with 
.


Sorry I must be missing something here. As far as I can tell, there is no 
specification related issue here. If the IE team want to introduce a new 
rendering mode they could indeed switch on the doctype. However there is nothing 
we can do to make this happen so there seems little point in discussing it.


I suppose one could argue over whether HTML5 should include the possibility of 
language version information in the document. However, exisiting implementators 
have reported that trying to switch rendering based on such information is 
highly undesirable because of the additional difficulty of development and 
testing. Therefore the spec instead takes the point of view that all future 
development of the HTML language must be backward compatible so that such 
switches are not needed.


--
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
 -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Asbjørn Ulsberg]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:33:54 +0100, Simon Pieters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:


The only way to not break 50% of the web is to invent a new mode that  
gives the IE developers a blank sheet they can begin to draw on.


FWIW, I think the 50% figure is incorrect. According to [1], 90% of the  
web use quirks mode.


Although it's great to get the right numbers on the table, it isn't really  
relevant for this discussion. If the IE team feels an obligation to  
maintain backwards compatibility with CSS1Compat and thus has a need to  
introduce another rendering switch, then that's what matters. The  
discussion is then how this should be enabled, and my proposal is with  
.


--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[liorean]

Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
>  Improving on the legacy, proprietary DOM just isn't feasible, imo.


On 14/03/07, Martin Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Are there particular parts that overlap between IE's DOM and the
standard DOM where IE's implementation is non-compliant?


Several, yeah. Most important is the events model.


If not, why can't IE simply support both sets of methods at the same
time? (In other words, add the standard DOM classes, methods and events
while leaving in all of the proprietary stuff that people depend on.)


Oh, without overlap everything would be fine and dandy. However,
consider how many scripts would break with just the simple change of
including all newline/whitespace text nodes in the DOM... Sure, any
sensibly coded script won't break because of this sense because it's
already coded so that a single piece of code handles both cases. But
everything that does a browser check and forks will suddenly fail. And
I think we all know that the vast majority of scripts out there aren't
sensibly coded.
--
David "liorean" Andersson

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Martin Atkins]

Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:

 Improving on the legacy, proprietary DOM just isn't feasible, imo.



Are there particular parts that overlap between IE's DOM and the 
standard DOM where IE's implementation is non-compliant?


If not, why can't IE simply support both sets of methods at the same 
time? (In other words, add the standard DOM classes, methods and events 
while leaving in all of the proprietary stuff that people depend on.)

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Shadow2531]

On 3/13/07, Asbjørn Ulsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:51:14 +0100, Shadow2531 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I guess at the least, it shows the desperate need to do something about
> IE.

I actually think the problem lies within Microsoft itself. I recommend
reading the following very entertaining articles from Joel Spolsky and
Moishe Lettvin, respectively, about the Windows Vista shut down menu:




I'm sure things are better in the IE camp, but if the development process
of the shut down menu of Windows Vista is any indication of how it is to
be a developer in Microsoft, then it's not really that surprising that
their products end up like they do. Including Internet Explorer.


Very interesting. Thanks

--
burnout426

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Simon Pieters]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:02:10 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


The only way to not break 50% of the web is to invent a new mode that  
gives the IE developers a blank sheet they can begin to draw on.


FWIW, I think the 50% figure is incorrect. According to [1], 90% of the  
web use quirks mode.


[1] http://triin.net/2006/06/12/HTML#document-types

--
Simon Pieters

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Robert Brodrecht]

Asbjørn Ulsberg Wrote:
> I did not think that @profile could be used as a rendering mode switch,

I didn't mean to suggest this was your line of thought.  What the IE team
uses as a switch is arbitrary.  I'm doing my best to keep the versioning
stuff I mentioned before inline with the topic of the thread.  If they
decide they need something in the HTML document to use, I'm guessing IE
Team wants something that is backwards compatible in the HTML document to
run the switch on (that way XHTML 1 and HTML 4.01 can use it).  (Though I
still endorse a header.)

>  but rather an "understandment level mode" switch for knowing if the
> document is based on W3C HTML5 or WHATWG HTML5.

I agree, and that one reason I'd use it (that and to tell people what I
was working with, even if W3C and WHATWG's HTMLs are the same).  If it had
fringe benefits, it'd be a bonus.

> Hopefully, we won't end  up in a situation with two competing standards,
though.

I hope so, but, as I said before, I'm skeptical.  It's better to be safe
in the end.

-- 
Robert 

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Asbjørn Ulsberg]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:32:33 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



No. Internet Explorer hasn't implemented (at least that I am aware of)
any proprietary or broken stuff in their browser for over 7 years.


No, IE7 introduces for example the -ms-interpolation-mode CSS property.


Yea, true. It's implemented according to best practice and  
recommendations, though, so this shouldn't break anything.



There is of course little wrong with that.


Exactly.

--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Asbjørn Ulsberg]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:51:14 +0100, Shadow2531 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



You make a good point. It could very well be an endless loop and
there's no guarantee (or even past evidience to show) that IE's new
standards mode would be up to par.


Yes, but only time will tell. If Microsoft continues to receive good  
competition from Firefox, Opera and Safari in the year to come, they have  
an incentive to continue developing IE. Faster development cycles,  
involvement in the standardisation processes and an open development  
community is what might make things different this time around.


I guess at the least, it shows the desperate need to do something about  
IE.


I actually think the problem lies within Microsoft itself. I recommend  
reading the following very entertaining articles from Joel Spolsky and  
Moishe Lettvin, respectively, about the Windows Vista shut down menu:





I'm sure things are better in the IE camp, but if the development process  
of the shut down menu of Windows Vista is any indication of how it is to  
be a developer in Microsoft, then it's not really that surprising that  
their products end up like they do. Including Internet Explorer.


--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

* Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
>No. Internet Explorer hasn't implemented (at least that I am aware of)
>any proprietary or broken stuff in their browser for over 7 years.

No, IE7 introduces for example the -ms-interpolation-mode CSS property.
There is of course little wrong with that.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Asbjørn Ulsberg]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:43:44 +0100, Elliotte Harold  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


What are those of us who wish to use XML tools on our documents supposed  
to use?


Set the 'xml_tool.ignore_doctype' property to 'true'. I'm sure most XML  
libraries have this (or a similar) option. At least most of the ones I've  
worked with has had them, and not having a DTD does not mean that you  
can't be strict about what you consume. There will be HTML5 XSD and RNG  
schemas available (I would actually think they exist already) for you to  
use in your application once that day comes. DTD is dead. Deal with it.



We will need a real DTD at some point, to declare the entities if
nothing else.


Then define your own internal subset. You don't need a full DTD for the  
entities. Just use XHTML 1.1's if you must:





We will not be able to use .


If you can get your parser to ignore it, sure you can.


Possibly this could be two-fold. E.g there could be both



and something like




That's an option too, but it would be confusing for authors.

I know some browser-centric folks here just hate DTDs and schemas of any  
kind; but we will need them, even if the browsers don't. We will create  
and use them, even if there's no normative DTD in the spec.


I don't hate schemas. I work with them almost every day. I also consume  
XHTML in various forms without ever having to touch a DTD. I'll say it  
again; DTD is dead.


One thing that's struck me in working with the spec over the last few  
days is just how hard it is to follow the various content models, and  
how much simpler most of them would be to read if they were described in  
a RELAX NG schema or a DTD.


That I can agree with. A compact Relax NG schema would definately be  
useful to codify (and thus clarify for many of us) the lengthy text that  
describes the conformance requirements. The schema should only be  
informative, of course, but it could even prove to be useful in the  
normative part of the spec, since having to think in RNG terms often makes  
you find bugs in the langauge you wouldn't see otherwise.


The Atom Syndication Format specification uses RNG in this style and I  
think it works amazingly well:




--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Asbjørn Ulsberg]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:41:15 +0100, Mihai Sucan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



So, with each new version of IE (released every 5-10 years), we will have
a new DOCTYPE, and a new rendering mode?


No. Internet Explorer hasn't implemented (at least that I am aware of) any  
proprietary or broken stuff in their browser for over 7 years. What they  
have done is improving on what they have and implementing what they didn't  
have (like *:hover) according to the standards. As long as:


- They continue this path,
- Have a steady and open development process (the IE blog has done  
wonders, Shelley Powers will probably do wonders too),
- Are active in the standardization processes (Chris Wilson is the chair  
of the W3C HTML WG),

- Make sure that what they implement is according to the standard,
- Make sure that if they do something wrong and implement it in a  
non-standard compliant way, they fix it (fast!)


IE.next won't need a new DOCTYPE. The only reason we have "standards mode"  
and "quirks mode" is because the development cycle for IE was extremely  
slow, they continued inventing proprietary stuff, they implemented stuff  
that didn't comply with the standards, they had a completely closed  
development group and process and they weren't very active in the  
standardization processes.


Seeing how much have changed since last time, it's at least room for hope.  
And I'm willing to give the IE team the benefit of the doubt and let them  
use  as a CSS2Compat switch that will let them do  
"everything" right.


Instead of using this DOCTYPE switch, I was even thinking of conditional  
comments, DOM document property, etc. Yet, other methods only add  
complications. If Microsoft considers adding a new rendering mode as a  
must, such that it will not break many sites, then this DOCTYPE is an  
elegant solution. History will repeat itself, no matter how elegant the  
solution might be.


Time will tell. I sincerely hope they can and will get the record straight  
this time around.


Probably I don't really like this proposal very much only because it's a  
solution for *this* very moment, forgetting the fact that rendering  
bugs, and sites that rely on the bugs, will exist forever (a constant  
problem).


With a faster development cycle, the IE team can implement bug fixes  
before developers get accustomed the bugs and start catering for them.


--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Asbjørn Ulsberg]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:26:12 +0100, Keryx Web <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Personally I think the best route to go for MS is to fix all bugs and  
make "Standards Compliance Mode" truly compliant. And perhaps mimic FFox  
and have an "almost compliance mode" for transitional doctypes, behaving  
the same way as FFox of course when they see one.


If you watched and listened to the Yahoo! talk[1], you'd notice the amount  
of documents on the web employing the CSS1Compat mode ("standards mode")  
today. According to Chris Wilson, it's about half of the web[2]. That's a  
lot of backward compatibility to pay attention to when you change  
something as serious as the DOM. The only way to not break 50% of the web  
is to invent a new mode that gives the IE developers a blank sheet they  
can begin to draw on. Improving on the legacy, proprietary DOM just isn't  
feasible, imo.


Let's not give MS an excuse to keep behaving badly with HTML 4.01 and  
XHTML 1!


First of all, IE doesn't understand XHTML, so they can't really behave  
badly with it. Second, this is not giving them an excuse. This is giving  
them a way out of the mess they've created with their proprietary DOM.


Currently they have managed to pull themselves partly up from the mess  
they created with the proprietary CSS implementation, but while they did  
that, the web noticed the effort and learnt about "standard mode"  
(CSS1Compat) and now they can't improve CSS1Compat without breaking almost  
half of the web. That's why  can be



[1] 
[2] Of the top 200 US web sites. I do not, however, think this number is  
unrepresentative for the web as a whole.


--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Robert Brodrecht]

Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
> Well, I'm not so sure. I'm hoping for some debating! :)

Looks like you got your wish.  This thread has been popular.

> Considering that Chris Wilson is the chair of the HTML WG as well as the
>   Platform Architect on the IE crew, plus the fact that several members
> of   WHAT WG (including myself) are now members of the HTML WG, don't
> you think   it's possible for us to bring forward this idea and get Mr.
> Wilson to   notice? It's at least worth a shot, imo.

I'm sure we could get him to notice.  He's already asked developers for
another way to opt in.

The problem will be if W3C wants to keep DTDs or otherwise shoots down
compatibility with WHAT's HTML 5 DOCTYPE.  Then using it as the switch
will only apply to WHAT's HTML 5.  Another solution will have to be made
for W3C's HTML 5.  This is why I've been suggesting a switch that didn't
rely on the markup.

If they differ, I doubt that will be a good solution for them.  Further, I
assume we're still a ways off from the final draft (but I can't find a
road map).  I'm wondering if they had something now if some change to IE7
could be made.  If they did, at least, they couldn't ignore the issue and
push it off on until developers found a solution for them.

It'd make more sense if we could get Chris Wilson in on the discussion.  I
assume they asked for something other than the DOCTYPE as a switch for a
specific reason ("some other way to opt in", were his words).  I'd really
like to know exactly what he expected.  Wish I was at that event.

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Mihai Sucan]

Le Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:04:39 +0200, Colin Lieberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a  
écrit:


I'm not sure how this is a backwards compatibility issue. My  
understanding is that user agents aren't actually parsing information  
from the doctype, just checking for its existence. The only applications  
that should break are validators, which would need to be updated anyway.


I ran some quick (and highly unscientific tests) on ff1.5 and ie7 (both  
pc) with a real html 4 doctype, , and   
(both with and without a space before the 5), and nothing broke in terms  
of rendering or function.


Please let me know if there's something I'm missing here.

Thanks,
Colin Lieberman


You can't simply invent any DOCTYPE definition, while having it backwards  
compatible.


Here's a tutorial about DTD, which also explains the DOCTYPE line:
http://www.w3schools.com/dtd/dtd_intro.asp

Specifically:


The root element in HTML5 is "html", not "html5".


--
http://www.robodesign.ro
ROBO Design - We bring you the future

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Simon Pieters]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:04:39 +0100, Colin Lieberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:


I'm not sure how this is a backwards compatibility issue. My  
understanding is that user agents aren't actually parsing information  
from the doctype, just checking for its existence. The only applications  
that should break are validators, which would need to be updated anyway.


I ran some quick (and highly unscientific tests) on ff1.5 and ie7 (both  
pc) with a real html 4 doctype, , and   
(both with and without a space before the 5), and nothing broke in terms  
of rendering or function.


Please let me know if there's something I'm missing here.


You're missing something. http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/07/html5-doctype

--
Simon Pieters

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Colin Lieberman]

I'm not sure how this is a backwards compatibility issue. My 
understanding is that user agents aren't actually parsing information 
from the doctype, just checking for its existence. The only applications 
that should break are validators, which would need to be updated anyway.


I ran some quick (and highly unscientific tests) on ff1.5 and ie7 (both 
pc) with a real html 4 doctype, , and  
(both with and without a space before the 5), and nothing broke in terms 
of rendering or function.


Please let me know if there's something I'm missing here.

Thanks,
Colin Lieberman

On 13/03/2007 16:51, Colin Lieberman wrote:
At the risk of killing beautiful simplicity, can we consider amending 
this to




or something similar? The omission of a version number feels like 
playing with fire to me.


Hum to say the least. One of the goals of the WHAT-WG is the
preservation of backwards compatibility, right ?

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Daniel Glazman]

On 13/03/2007 16:51, Colin Lieberman wrote:
At the risk of killing beautiful simplicity, can we consider amending 
this to




or something similar? The omission of a version number feels like 
playing with fire to me.


Hum to say the least. One of the goals of the WHAT-WG is the
preservation of backwards compatibility, right ?

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Colin Lieberman]

At the risk of killing beautiful simplicity, can we consider amending 
this to




or something similar? The omission of a version number feels like 
playing with fire to me.


Colin Lieberman




3. For "super-duper" standards mode use the following DOCTYPE:

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Asbjørn Ulsberg]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:16:09 +0100, Mihai Sucan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:


Alexey, actually I'm skeptical about this. First impression I had  
reading the first post was "hey, do we need yet another switch?". What's  
"super-duper" standards mode after all?


It's something Internet Explorer needs to switch their JavaScript DOM  
implementation over from the proprietary one they have now, to a  
standard-compliant one that adheres to W3C's DOM1, DOM2 and DOM3  
specifications. If there are other glitches in the existing Standard Mode  
(CSS1Compat) that would need fixing to comply better with the standards,  
then that should also be fixed in this new standard mode (let's call it  
CSS2Compat).



How will tutorials look:

1. For quirks mode use no DOCTYPE.


Nobody should use quirks mode, not even for backwards compatibility, so no  
tutorials should mention it. If they do, it should only be swiftly, and  
examples of how to trigger it should not be provided imnsho.



2. For standards mode use one of the following DOCTYPEs:

"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd";>


Yes.


3. For "super-duper" standards mode use the following DOCTYPE:




For other browsers,  would trigger the same mode as the  
full HTML 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE. But for Internet Explorer,   
could trigger a mode where the DOM isn't backward compatible with the  
proprietary one, but instead implements what everyone else implements; the  
W3C DOM.


My point is: we either want it, or not, what we have today called as  
"standards mode" is also buggy (each browser has its own set of  
rendering bugs). If IE adds the third level of rendering, then we have  
yet another DOCTYPE switch.


Yep.

Microsoft needs to make the improvements in the current standards mode -  
as they did now with IE 7. They need to continue this.


Absolutely. But as Microsoft, I too feel that the now existing base of  
documents using CSS1Compat and at the same time relying on IE's  
proprietary DOM is quite substantial. As Chris Wilson mentions in the  
Yahoo! talk, there are now over 40% documents employing CSS1Compat "out  
there". That's quite a large amount of pages to break, if they want to  
just switch out the proprietary DOM with W3C DOM in CSS1Compat mode.


Introducing CSS2Compat would make the existing base of CSS1Compat sites  
render correctly, while all new sites could move over to CSS2Compat and  
base their stuff on the W3C DOM. It would of course need backward  
compatibility libraries for older versions of Internet Explorer, but it  
would be a way forward where these compatiblity libraries eventually can  
be dropped, exactly like the plan is with HTML Forms 2.0, for instance.



Adding a new DOCTYPE switch is not a solution to Microsoft's problem.


I believe it is. Since CSS1Compat didn't fix the proprietary IE DOM, they  
need a new switch to fix it. And that switch could be . It  
could also be 'Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml', but it's quite a bit  
of overkill to require XHTML to make IE's DOM W3C compliant imo.


However, if this proposal makes it into IE.next, it wouldn't be a  
problem (since it triggers standards mode in the other browsers, and  
it's fairly safe to use).


Exactly.

--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Asbjørn Ulsberg]

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:46:15 +0100, Alexey Feldgendler  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


There would be replies if your idea was incomplete or controversial, but  
actually it seems like everyone agrees.


Well, I'm not so sure. I'm hoping for some debating! :)


What worries me is whether there is a chance that Microsoft actually does
what's suggested (and whether someone in Microsoft who is in position to
influence this decision actually finds out about this idea and gets
convinced).


Considering that Chris Wilson is the chair of the HTML WG as well as the  
Platform Architect on the IE crew, plus the fact that several members of  
WHAT WG (including myself) are now members of the HTML WG, don't you think  
it's possible for us to bring forward this idea and get Mr. Wilson to  
notice? It's at least worth a shot, imo.


--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Robert Brodrecht]

On Mar 11, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

Beg my pardon but did you try to do this on the server hosting  
robertdot.org?
It should not affect any headers. At least it was so last time I  
tried to do the same.


For the record, my initial test was on my computer (Apache on Mac OS  
X 10.4).  I took your suggestion and ran the tests on my rented  
virtual server.


To see the results (explanations of each are on the page):

[1] http://whatwg.robertdot.org/files/20070312-html/
[2] http://whatwg.robertdot.org/files/20070312-xhtml/

Also, I added the following to an .htaccess file: 'Header append X- 
Standards-Mode "HTML5"'  If you open the URL with LiveHTTPHeaders  
(FireFox extension) running, you'll see the header included.


[3] http://whatwg.robertdot.org/files/20070312-standards-mode/

I don't mean this as an advertisement, but merely as a reference to  
help my point about headers.  My site is hosted a  
deltawebhosting.com.  I pay $3 per month.  I would hope that a more  
expensive server would, at least, offer the same great features I get  
for $3.  But, if not, meta http-equivs are available.  I just like  
the .htaccess header because it is invisible, easier to implement on  
existing pages, and doesn't need to go in an html recommendation.   
Rather, it'd go on MSDN where it belongs (and probably end up on  
quirksmode.com).



--
Robert 

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Ian Hickson]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Matthew Ratzloff wrote:
> On Mon, March 12, 2007 10:39 am, Ian Hickson wrote:
> >>
> >> It's tempting to think that browser makers will get it right the 
> >> first time, but I'm not sure I believe it.   might 
> >> introduce headaches when Microsoft or Mozilla or somebody realize 
> >> they've had a bug in their rendering engine for a couple of years 
> >> that people depend on now. Does that DOCTYPE now become  >> HTML STRICT>?
> >
> > No, we just fix the spec.
> 
> I don't understand.  The bug becomes part of HTML 6?

If Web content relies on it so much that browser vendors are forced to 
implement it, then yes, we just make it part of the language. We've 
already done that in HTML5 with, for example, changing

   

...to:

   


> > You still end up with dozens of codepaths to test. Testing one browser 
> > is a near-infinite amount of work, increasing the complexity is not 
> > workable.
> 
> The idea was that common functionality would be moved back into the 
> core, so that dozens of code paths wouldn't have to be tested.  
> Requiring bug reports to contain either a URL or the version the bug 
> occurs under would narrow bug hunting greatly.  And it's not like it'd 
> affect the entire code set--JPEGs, for instance, aren't subject to 
> version differences.

You still have to test everything in each mode. The whole point of testing 
is to make sure there's no unexpected behaviour. You can't assume that the 
behaviour is correct in both modes just because it's supposed to be.

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Matthew Ratzloff]

On Mon, March 12, 2007 10:39 am, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> It's tempting to think that browser makers will get it right the first
>> time, but I'm not sure I believe it.   might introduce
>> headaches when Microsoft or Mozilla or somebody realize they've had a
>> bug in their rendering engine for a couple of years that people depend
>> on now. Does that DOCTYPE now become ?
>
> No, we just fix the spec.

I don't understand.  The bug becomes part of HTML 6?

> You still end up with dozens of codepaths to test. Testing one browser is
> a near-infinite amount of work, increasing the complexity is not workable.

The idea was that common functionality would be moved back into the core,
so that dozens of code paths wouldn't have to be tested.  Requiring bug
reports to contain either a URL or the version the bug occurs under would
narrow bug hunting greatly.  And it's not like it'd affect the entire code
set--JPEGs, for instance, aren't subject to version differences.

>> In effect, I'm suggesting a structure like this:
>>
>> --Base rendering engine
>>   |
>>   +- HTML 4 quirks mode
>>   +- HTML 5 (renders HTML 4 strict as well)
>
> I think you have a simplistic view of how browsers work. I recommend
> looking at the source of Mozilla or Webkit.

I have no doubt that you are more familiar with the innards.  I was
speaking broadly, though, and I have looked at both before (I've even
contributed a bit of code to Firefox--woohoo, right? :-D).  However, on
your suggestion I took another look.  The primary barrier to something
like this seems to be the somewhat random way the code is organized, not
any sort of intrinsic difference in browsers from the rest of the software
world.

In any event, this is basically off-topic at this point, so no reply is
necessary.  Thanks for the banter.  :-)

-Matt

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Gareth Hay]

On 12 Mar 2007, at 17:39, Ian Hickson wrote:




Any reasonable implementation would have a base rendering engine and
then browser differences would extend off of it.  A new version would
mean you change only what differs between versions.


You still end up with dozens of codepaths to test. Testing one  
browser is
a near-infinite amount of work, increasing the complexity is not  
workable.


Quirks vs Strict has already made the life of Web browser vendors  
FAR more
complicated than necessary; adding yet more modes is simply not  
something

any sane browser vendor would do.


I completely agree, Mozilla, WebKit, et Al, are *not* going to  
implement something that would make their lives a misery.
They will simply ignore such a spec, and we will be back in the mess  
we started.


Gareth Hay

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Ian Hickson]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Matthew Ratzloff wrote:
> >
> > Strict mode isn't versioning, per se; it's a toggle between two modes 
> > which was basically required to get around the problem of the 
> > standards not lining up with reality and the browsers being unable to 
> > both comply to standards and render legacy content.
> 
> It's tempting to think that browser makers will get it right the first 
> time, but I'm not sure I believe it.   might introduce 
> headaches when Microsoft or Mozilla or somebody realize they've had a 
> bug in their rendering engine for a couple of years that people depend 
> on now. Does that DOCTYPE now become ?

No, we just fix the spec.


> What happens then when HTML 6 is introduced?

Nothing special. HTML6 will just be backwards compatible like HTML5 is.


> > HTML5 doesn't need such a rendering mode flag because it doesn't 
> > introduce incompatibilities (by design).
> 
> Sure, but can you guarantee that also for HTML 6, HTML 7?

Pretty much. The only version of HTML not to have done this was XHTML2, 
and it is pretty much dead on arrival.

If a future version of HTML really needs versioning, then the people who 
make it can add versioning. I think it would be a horrible mistake, but 
that's not our problem.


> Versioning is a great strategy if implemented well.

I fundamentally disagree. 


> Any reasonable implementation would have a base rendering engine and 
> then browser differences would extend off of it.  A new version would 
> mean you change only what differs between versions.

You still end up with dozens of codepaths to test. Testing one browser is 
a near-infinite amount of work, increasing the complexity is not workable.

Quirks vs Strict has already made the life of Web browser vendors FAR more 
complicated than necessary; adding yet more modes is simply not something 
any sane browser vendor would do.


> Like products, browser makers could set a cut-off date for new support 
> requests for older versions of HTML.  For example, when HTML 7 comes 
> out, browser makers wouldn't be obligated to correct HTML 5-specific 
> bugs anymore.  They would support, at most, maybe two versions (one 
> primary, one secondary).

They're not "obligated" to fix any bugs at all. They do it because they 
have to to render Web sites properly so that they get more users than 
other Web browsers. They'd continue doing so for as long as it made sense.

Now consider what it would take for someone to write a Web browser from 
scratch in 500 years in your system. Can you imagine the complexity of 
having to implement three dozen variants just to render content written 
from 2035 to 2080?


> In effect, I'm suggesting a structure like this:
> 
> --Base rendering engine
>   |
>   +- HTML 4 quirks mode
>   +- HTML 5 (renders HTML 4 strict as well)

I think you have a simplistic view of how browsers work. I recommend 
looking at the source of Mozilla or Webkit.

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Matthew Ratzloff]

On Sun, March 11, 2007 7:57 pm, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> The Web has done great so far without it?  When "strict" mode was
>> introduced, all existing websites didn't suddenly start rendering under
>> it.  It was opt-in.  Versioning is just a formalized way of opting into
>> a certain rendering method.
>
> Strict mode isn't versioning, per se; it's a toggle between two modes
> which was basically required to get around the problem of the standards
> not lining up with reality and the browsers being unable to both comply to
> standards and render legacy content.

It's tempting to think that browser makers will get it right the first
time, but I'm not sure I believe it.   might introduce
headaches when Microsoft or Mozilla or somebody realize they've had a bug
in their rendering engine for a couple of years that people depend on now.
 Does that DOCTYPE now become ?  What happens then
when HTML 6 is introduced?

> HTML5 doesn't need such a rendering mode flag because it doesn't introduce
> incompatibilities (by design).

Sure, but can you guarantee that also for HTML 6, HTML 7?

> As a rule, versioning is a very bad design strategy. Implementors are
> forced to support every version that is used by content. If versions are
> different from each other, then that basically means a new implementation
> per version. If there are five versions, then browser vendors end up
> having to support five browsers instead of one. Given how much difficulty
> browser vendors have supporting just the one browser (or one-and-a-bit,
> with quirks mode), I would hate to force them to support, over the years,
> dozens of different versions.

Versioning is a great strategy if implemented well.  Any reasonable
implementation would have a base rendering engine and then browser
differences would extend off of it.  A new version would mean you change
only what differs between versions.

Like products, browser makers could set a cut-off date for new support
requests for older versions of HTML.  For example, when HTML 7 comes out,
browser makers wouldn't be obligated to correct HTML 5-specific bugs
anymore.  They would support, at most, maybe two versions (one primary,
one secondary).

In effect, I'm suggesting a structure like this:

--Base rendering engine
  |
  +- HTML 4 quirks mode
  +- HTML 5 (renders HTML 4 strict as well)

-Matt

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Robert Brodrecht]

On Mar 11, 2007, at 4:39 AM, Mihai Sucan wrote:

It's false to assume the UA developers can happily say "now we'll  
parse HTML5, lets use our new HTML5 parser". No, this won't happen.  
Here's why: the UA cannot be sure that the document is *really*  
HTML 5.


Browsers don't read DTDs.  They wouldn't read the link  
rel="recommedation" src="url-to-html-document".  It would exist to  
commit the author of the document to a certain recommendation, and,  
in the future, let other authors know what the author was working  
with.  Like DTDs but for humans instead of programs.  The browsers  
would continue to do whatever they feel like they need to do to  
render the content.


So, I ask you: what use is then a DTD, a version attribute, or any  
indication that the document is written with HTML5 in mind? It's  
practically useless. The UAs will completely ignore it, if it would  
exist (at least for the moment - the future is still subject to  
change :) ).


Web standards are about committing to ideals.  It would serve the  
purpose of committing the author to a certain ideal (e.g. WHATWG's  
HTML 5 standards) and, in the future, let other authors know what the  
author was intending to do.  I don't see this as differing much from  
link rel="author" and link rel="license". [1]  It'd be an optional  
tag for those of us who want to let people know exactly what we were  
trying to do with the document.


I think it's too early to talk about W3C HTML5 versus WHATWG HTML5.  
We shall wait and see.


Some people don't save money in the event that they get laid off from  
their job.  All I'm saying is that a contingency plan won't hurt  
anything.  We have a competing standard now.  The fact that the  
WHATWG exists suggest that we could have more competing standards.   
Before, it was OK to act as though the WHAT HTML 5 was the only HTML  
5 because it was the only HTML 5.  By the time W3C finishes their  
recommendation, there will be two HTML 5s. I will be very surprised  
if W3C and WHAT create two completely compatible recommendations.   
I'm worried that the new browser wars to be recommendation wars...
Things are suddenly different now than they were before.  Talking  
about it now before it is a problem sure beats having to hack around  
it after it is a problem (see the original quirksmode switch and the  
fact that IE team now wants another quirksmode switch).


I don't remember them *asking* a WG for such solutions. This is  
only a proposal made by the initial author of the thread.


Microsoft didn't ask a standards group for a solution.  They asked  
developers for another standards mode opt-in. [2]  Presumably, the  
opt-in would be something in one of the new recommendations that is  
different from HTML 4.  That would fall on WHAT WG and W3C WG.  The  
header I suggested would put it in the hands of IE instead of in the  
hands of a specification.  Then it isn't about the specification.   
It's about some proprietary thing Microsoft needs for their browser  
to work better for us.  All they want is some way to tell their  
browser to use super-standards mode.  There really is no reason to  
put this switch in HTML 5.  The header could be called "X-IE-SUPER- 
STANDARDS-MODE: On;" to solve the problem.  My example was written  
how it was before ("X-STANDARDS-MODE: HTML5") to give Microsoft a  
little more leeway if they needed yet another switch in the future  
(as some on this list feel they may).  It really doesn't matter what  
the header is.  What matters is that it means WHAT doesn't need to  
add some proprietary thing to their recommendation to fix IE's problems.


[1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#linkTypes
[2] http://video.yahoo.com/video/play? 
vid=cccd4aa02a3993ab06e56af731346f78.2006940 or http:// 
us.dl1.yimg.com/download.yahoo.com/dl/ydn/yui/theater/ 
browserwars-20070228.m4v (18:49 is where Chris Wilson actually says  
the line in question; the monologue that leads to the question starts  
around 15:00 )

--
Robert 

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Ian Hickson]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Matthew Ratzloff wrote:
> On Sun, March 11, 2007 3:20 pm, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >
> > There needs to be versioning? The web has done great so far without 
> > it... I'm not sure I really see the need.
> 
> The Web has done great so far without it?  When "strict" mode was 
> introduced, all existing websites didn't suddenly start rendering under 
> it.  It was opt-in.  Versioning is just a formalized way of opting into 
> a certain rendering method.

Strict mode isn't versioning, per se; it's a toggle between two modes 
which was basically required to get around the problem of the standards 
not lining up with reality and the browsers being unable to both comply to 
standards and render legacy content.

HTML5 doesn't need such a rendering mode flag because it doesn't introduce 
incompatibilities (by design).

As a rule, versioning is a very bad design strategy. Implementors are 
forced to support every version that is used by content. If versions are 
different from each other, then that basically means a new implementation 
per version. If there are five versions, then browser vendors end up 
having to support five browsers instead of one. Given how much difficulty 
browser vendors have supporting just the one browser (or one-and-a-bit, 
with quirks mode), I would hate to force them to support, over the years, 
dozens of different versions.


> It would be great if rendering always stayed the same, browser makers 
> always got it right the first time, and things were only added to the 
> specification.  But as I mentioned previously, without versioning of 
> some sort, rendering either becomes a moving target or browser makers 
> become slaves to backwards compatibility.  Or, more likely, some 
> combination of both.

The basic design principles of the WHATWG:

   http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webapps-cdf-ws/papers/opera.html

...assumes that backwards compatibility will be supported above all else. 
(It's the first thing listed, even.)

I don't see what you describe as a problem, but as a strength.

Sure, it's less "pure", but it is far more pragmatic, and far more likely 
to actually work and remain maintainable on the long term.

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Matthew Ratzloff]

On Sun, March 11, 2007 3:20 pm, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> There needs to be versioning? The web has done great so far without it...
> I'm not sure I really see the need.

The Web has done great so far without it?  When "strict" mode was
introduced, all existing websites didn't suddenly start rendering under
it.  It was opt-in.  Versioning is just a formalized way of opting into a
certain rendering method.

It would be great if rendering always stayed the same, browser makers
always got it right the first time, and things were only added to the
specification.  But as I mentioned previously, without versioning of some
sort, rendering either becomes a moving target or browser makers become
slaves to backwards compatibility.  Or, more likely, some combination of
both.

By introducing a version attribute, browser makers can have a rendering
engine for HTML 4.01, one for HTML 5, one for HTML 6, and so on (or
really, one rendering engine with differences extended off of it).  This
way, users are required to transition to newer forms of HTML if they want
access to new tags, which also means no longer using deprecated tags (with
something like a one-version transitional period).  If you want access to
, you have to give up  at some point.  And no one is
ever required to update their old sites to get them to render correctly.

This seems especially important with deprecation or with tags that change
usage between versions.

Of course, this requires lots of communication between browser makers and
standards bodies.

-Matt

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 06:40:18 +0100, Matthew Ratzloff  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't care about DTD, but DOCTYPE is established, so it seems strange  
to trash it in favor of something new when the benefit is questionable  
(as

far as I can tell).  It is also evident to me that there needs to be some
kind of versioning--consistent rendering shouldn't be a moving target.


There needs to be versioning? The web has done great so far without it...  
I'm not sure I really see the need.




If DTD is out, bring back the deprecated "version" attribute that it
replaced.  Assuming there is only one version of HTML 5.0, the following
would work:


...


All attributes optional, obviously.


What exactly would this help with? (I might be convinced that a  
meaningless version="" attribute is useful for conformance checkers. To  
make conformance not a moving target. However, given that other  
interpreting software, such as web browsers, do change, maybe conformance  
should too.)



--
Anne van Kesteren

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Andrew Fedoniouk]

- Original Message - 
From: Robert Brodrecht

To: Andrew Fedoniouk
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:49 AM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch



On Mar 10, 2007, at 11:03 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
It is idealistic because, say, if you will put following in your 
.htaccess:

AddType foo/bar .html


If I "AddType application/xhtml+xml .html" to a .htaccess file, it causes 
browsers to interpret my html as XHTML.

...



Beg my pardon but did you try to do this on the server hosting 
robertdot.org?
It should not affect any headers. At least it was so last time I tried to do 
the same.


This is just a demonstration that use of headers is limited.

There are many other ways to deliver HTML content. Only one of them
is using http protocol (so headers).

E.g. access to content by ftp, HTML as a clipboard format in
cut-n-paste operations, DOMElement.setInnerHtml use, etc.

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Mihai Sucan]

Le Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:35:09 +0200, Daniel Glazman  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:



Just as a reminder, and I am an old monkey in the world of standards
bodies, a standard body is not only a cool place where friendly geeks
meet, drink (sometimes) free beer, and write standards for the beauty
of standards.

A standards body is a battlefield, where organizations want to push
THEIR OWN competitive advantage, be the first one to blabla, the best
one to blabla, where they hope to be THE solution's provider when
multiple solutions are on the table because THEY can implement it before
others.


I am sure of that. Everyone wants to push its own competitive advantage.  
That's good, as long as several ones "win" the battle (not only one "wins"  
everything) - otherwise we would really end having a monoculture.



As a reminder too, the IE team went from /dev/null to A BIG TEAM.


Going from /dev/null to A BIG TEAM is sure great, but there's a bit of  
salt in that: it's disappointing the fact they had no team at all for IE.



Last point, without IE, CSS wouldn't be what it is today. Without IE,
many W3C standards including the DOM would not be what they are today.
I can't count how many clever ideas Microsoft submitted to W3C WGs.


I know this piece of web browsers history.

Ironically, yes, Microsoft did push many innovative ideas into the Web,  
and then they abandoned the Web in 2001-2. Probably this is what annoys me  
most (and others as well): they abandoned the Web, leaving us with a buggy  
implementations of CSS, DOM, HTML, etc. I find it somewhat "outrageous" to  
have to spend days (and some spend nights as well) just to make a site  
work in IE - just because it has a huge market share. It is for *that*  
reason alone we are most tired of it.


And because Microsoft stopped improving IE, more and more web sites  
continued to rely on the bugs.



Please stop seeing the Great Evil Empire or you won't be able to
sit with them at a standardization table...


Agreed.

We will have to wait and see what the big team will do for IE.next.


--
http://www.robodesign.ro
ROBO Design - We bring you the future

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Daniel Glazman]

On 11/03/2007 13:11, Mihai Sucan wrote:

Yes I understand that, however I am skeptical about Microsoft Internet 
Explorer. I do not really believe they stopped wanting to dominate the 
web browsers market, and suddenly they'll just make a good web browser. 
They will create lockins, traps, and other tricks, to lock beginners in 
a Microsoftish World Wide Web.


Until further proof, I shall maintain my stance.

IE 7 is not such proof. It would have been a good start, in 2002-2003.


Just as a reminder, and I am an old monkey in the world of standards
bodies, a standard body is not only a cool place where friendly geeks
meet, drink (sometimes) free beer, and write standards for the beauty
of standards.

A standards body is a battlefield, where organizations want to push
THEIR OWN competitive advantage, be the first one to blabla, the best
one to blabla, where they hope to be THE solution's provider when
multiple solutions are on the table because THEY can implement it before
others.

And yes, same thing for the WHAT-WG modulo the fact browser vendors
are in good agreement here.

Standardization is a rather fair game, despite of being sometimes
a violent one, and Microsoft is like others here.

As a reminder too, the IE team went from /dev/null to A BIG TEAM.
Even if IE7 is not what many would call a "2007 browser", it's still
pushing the community and forcing us to remain active and reactive.
Diversity is good for the web ecosystem. IE7 is most welcome.

Last point, without IE, CSS wouldn't be what it is today. Without IE,
many W3C standards including the DOM would not be what they are today.
I can't count how many clever ideas Microsoft submitted to W3C WGs.

Please stop seeing the Great Evil Empire or you won't be able to
sit with them at a standardization table...

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Mihai Sucan]

Le Sun, 11 Mar 2007 02:45:18 +0200, Alexey Feldgendler  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:


Not necessarily. For a long time, Microsoft has been in a position where  
they benefit from the lack of interoperability with other browsers. They  
had no incentive to make their browser standards-compliant. Now times  
have changed, and even Microsoft, as far as I understand, is now willing  
to improve their standards compliance. So I don't think that the  
standards-mode story will repeat -- this happened before due to browser  
wars, where interoperability has been broken intentionally.


Yes I understand that, however I am skeptical about Microsoft Internet  
Explorer. I do not really believe they stopped wanting to dominate the web  
browsers market, and suddenly they'll just make a good web browser. They  
will create lockins, traps, and other tricks, to lock beginners in a  
Microsoftish World Wide Web.


Until further proof, I shall maintain my stance.

IE 7 is not such proof. It would have been a good start, in 2002-2003.

Instead of using this DOCTYPE switch, I was even thinking of  
conditional comments, DOM document property, etc. Yet, other methods  
only add complications. If Microsoft considers adding a new rendering  
mode as a must, such that it will not break many sites, then this  
DOCTYPE is an elegant solution. History will repeat itself, no matter  
how elegant the solution might be.


Conditonal comments and similar approaches solve another kind of  
problem: how to allow making pages which do the right thing in good  
browsers but still function in older browsers. OTOH, the DOCTYPE switch  
allows the browser to do the right thing for good pages without breaking  
the old pages.


Hence I consider the  a good and elegant solution for  
switching to the "strict standards mode" (even if I do not support it). I  
do not like the other proposals in this thread.



--
http://www.robodesign.ro
ROBO Design - We bring you the future

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Mihai Sucan]

Le Sun, 11 Mar 2007 02:37:30 +0200, Matthew Ratzloff  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:



Relying on headers is a good way to get people to ignore that part of the
specification.  Web designers don't want to worry about headers and
.htaccess files.  It has to be syntactic.


Agreed.



I don't understand what's wrong with DOCTYPEs, myself.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd";>
http://www.whatwg.org/dtd/html5/strict.dtd";>
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/strict.dtd";>
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>

The seem to serve the purpose.  If there are two HTML 5 specifications,
browser makers can come together to decide which one to support by  
default

when no DOCTYPE is present.  Developers who would prefer the alternate
standard could use the appropriate DOCTYPE.


Hmm... What's the use of a DTD if no UA cannot rely on it? If no UA will  
verify the code against the DTD, if no UA will even download it?


I don't know why... but I have the impression some of the people  
participating in this discussion want a DOCTYPE DTD just like they want a  
 atrtibute. This simply means that the DOCTYPE definition,  
by itself, is stripped by all technical value (the value of defining a  
DTD), changing its role to a simple tag/line for "informing" the UA and  
human code readers about the intentions of the author: "I sing HTML5".




-Matt


Hello Matt :). I think you miss quoted me. This is *not* what I said:


On Mar 10, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Mihai Sucan wrote:

We're already using headers to swap between HTML and XHTML (since we
still call both .html files).  Headers are for telling user agents
how to deal with content.  It seems like sending a header "X-
STANDARDS-MODE: HTML5;" (or "WHATWG-HTML5" if W3C's HTML 5 is
significantly different) or setting an http-equiv meta tag to tell IE
to use their super-standards mode is cleaner and more desirable as it
doesn't bloat the spec, and should be more than enough for them.  If
their standards mode for HTML5 has flaws and they need a NEW switch,
it can be changed to "X-STANDARDS-MODE: HTML6;" or whatever the
latest version of HTML is.  This can be set across an entire server
in a few seconds via config files if needed, or set on a single
folder via .htaccess files.  If headers are used, that also doesn't
bloat the file if is is saved on someone's HDD.


That was actually said by Robert Brodrecht. :)




--
http://www.robodesign.ro
ROBO Design - We bring you the future

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Mihai Sucan]

Le Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:51:30 +0200, WHATWG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:


On Mar 10, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Mihai Sucan wrote:


There's no way to advertise the document as HTML 5, and it's
certainly not the purpose of the specification to do so.


This is a problem.  It is especially a problem now that the W3C is
working on their version of HTML 5.  When I asked Ian Hickson how
WHATWG would handle divergence in the W3C spec [1], he said he
"intended to make every effort to keep the two in sync." [2]  While I
appreciate his effort and I fully believe that he will do his best,
we are dealing with a body (i.e. the W3C) who have a history of
stubbornness and unwillingness to work with important members of the
community. [3]  The future is still undecided, but I don't think it
is a good idea to operate under the assumption that the W3C will copy
and paste the entire WHATWG HTML 5 spec.


Yes, this is going to be very interesting. If we will end-up having two  
separate HTML 5 specs, then The Web will be at loss. Stubborness should  
not have any place in HTML 5.



It seems the WHATWG is staunchly against DTDs, even if it has an
appropriate use (e.g. emails in this thread talking about XML
entities).  I've mulled over this awhile.  Since DTDs aren't
normative in browsers, perhaps a "link" element with a
"rel=specification" and an "href=http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/
current-work/" (for example) would be a new way to say, "this is the
specification I used to create this document."  It is easier to
remember than the DOCTYPE DTDs on pervious versions of HTML, and it
is much more human-readable than DTDs.  It addresses my concerns, and
doesn't use DTDs.


No, adding yet another way to inform the UA about the type of document is  
not good. So, no, I don't think using HTTP headers, or "link" elements, is  
good.


Let me make some points.

Say we have the version attribute, as suggested, on the  tag (the  
root tag), or we have the suggested HTTP header, or we have the "link"  
element, or a specific DTD, or whatever - it doesn't really matter. It's  
false to assume the UA developers can happily say "now we'll parse HTML5,  
lets use our new HTML5 parser". No, this won't happen. Here's why: the UA  
cannot be sure that the document is *really* HTML 5. The UAs (most notably  
the web browsers: Opera, Gecko, Safari, I-Etc), will continue to use their  
wild guessing technniques, their error recovery algorithms, and parsing  
rules. If they encounter supported tags/attributes/code defined in the  
HTML5 spec, they'll just use them. This is happening today in Opera 9: the  
Web Forms 2 implementation does not use any versioning, any specific DTD.  
The UA does not need to know if the document will contain WF2 or not.  
However, if it does find  then *that* will be used.  
Same goes for HTML5.


Also, web developers will never be able to rely on the fact that UAs will  
stop parsing the document if HTML5 is not supported (heck, that's not the  
purpose, *we* actually want older browsers to be able to use new HTML5  
documents). Next, web developers cannot expect that the UA will support  
all the HTML5 features. For example, they'll still need to check for the  
existence of each new DOM property/method.


So, I ask you: what use is then a DTD, a version attribute, or any  
indication that the document is written with HTML5 in mind? It's  
practically useless. The UAs will completely ignore it, if it would exist  
(at least for the moment - the future is still subject to change :) ).


By adding such indications we only create false expectations to  
beginners/noobs/non-experts.  They will create broken pages that rely on  
such indications.




Now, I don't know if it can be used as a quirksmode switch.  The
DOCTYPE seems like an ideal place to run the switch.  The problem
will be if the W3C (or some other as yet unformed working group that
decides to fork HTML) doesn't implement a DTD-less DOCTYPE.  If the
switch is the WHATWG HTML5 DOCTYPE, documents authored under W3C HTML
5 spec will not render in super-standard mode.  Browsers will have to
have multiple super-standards modes switches depending on what
version of HTML5 the author uses.


I think it's too early to talk about W3C HTML5 versus WHATWG HTML5. We  
shall wait and see.



IE asking a working group to provide some new way to specify
standards mode doesn't make sense.  That is an implementation problem
that they need to figure out.  It isn't our job to write their
software.  WHATWG doesn't need to bloat the spec for them.  The IE
team needs to be creative and find a solution to their problem.


I don't remember them *asking* a WG for such solutions. This is only a  
proposal made by the initial author of the thread.


Agreed, Microsoft needs to be creative (not evil) and find a solution.


We're already using headers to swap between HTML and XHTML (since we
still call both .html files).  Headers are for telling user agents
how to deal with content.  It 

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Robert Brodrecht]

On Mar 10, 2007, at 11:03 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
It is idealistic because, say, if you will put following in  
your .htaccess:

AddType foo/bar .html


If I "AddType application/xhtml+xml .html" to a .htaccess file, it  
causes browsers to interpret my html as XHTML.  Browsers might ignore  
unknown types, but, at least with HTML, serving it with a different  
type DOES make a different.  If I add a no-cache or expires header  
via the PHP header(), the browser caches the file differently.  It  
might be idealistic to throw an unknown header and expect it to work,  
but if it is a header the browser knows, it will behave differently.   
IE is willing to add some Super-Standards Mode based on some new  
switch.  So, they will recognize the header.



Think about this: All UAs will correctly present file
some.png even it contains jpeg bits. Even if server reports image/x- 
png content-type for it.
It is very old tradition in software design - all file formats  
contain identification of the

content type in some form - usually first 256 bytes
is enough to determine type. So why html should be an exception of  
this rule?


UAs sniff headers.  WHATWG's HTML 5 is trying to kill off the DTD,  
which would be a good thing to sniff on, as I specified in the blog I  
posted about this very subject.[1]  What the WHATWG gives us is only  
a way to say "This is HTML" not "This is HTML 5" or "This is HTML  
6."  So, sniffing isn't possible as far as I can tell.  That is why  
it is an exception.


Furthermore, if we follow the spec, we will be fine for all things  
HTML 5 wants.  The DOCTYPE is new and unique.  For HTML 6, if we need  
to tell the browser something else, we can't.  There is no versioning.


This thread is about telling IE to turn on super standards mode.  (I  
combined some stuff that has been on my mind instead of starting a  
new thread.  As a newbie to this mailing list, I didn't want to over- 
step my bounds early on.  It's ended up with more confusion.)  IE's  
rendering modes have nothing to do with the HTML document itself, and  
everything to do with telling the browser how to handle the  
document.  It's not the responsibility of the recommendation to tell  
the browser what mode it needs to render in.  It's not in the W3C  
recommendation to use the DOCTYPE as a quirksmode switch in HTML 4.   
It was something that the browser vendors decided to do.  As I said  
before, I think it's a cop out for the IE team to ask for a new  
switch.  They should be creative and figure it out themselves.  My  
suggestion was for them to do something non-invasive to the HTML 5  
recommendation (look for a particular header) that would work even if  
W3C's recommendation is radically different from the WHATWG's.  It  
will be more universal, won't bloat the specs, will work better for  
what the IE team expects (something in addition to the doctype) and  
can be modified to whatever Microsoft decides it wants to be since it  
will be proprietary to their browser.


--
Robert 



[1] http://robertdot.org/2007/03/08/html-5-whatwg-versus-w3c.html

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Andrew Fedoniouk]

- Original Message - 
From: Robert Brodrecht 
To: Andrew Fedoniouk 
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:36 PM

Subject: Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch


On Mar 10, 2007, at 5:24 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:



And yet: web server configuration of headers is not always available.
Public virtual site hosts is a good example.



And more:
Server adminestering and content creation are different roles/activities.
As a rule different people handle these tasks. Requiring both of them
to be involved in proces of creation of valid content will decrease
probability that result will be valid.


People seem to have looked over the part where I suggested it could 
be either a header or *an http-equiv meta tag.*  The meta tag cuts 
out the backend developer / server admin.  Furthermore, if you have 
a need and your host or backend developer is not willing to honor that 
request, you are hiring the wrong people and you should find someone 
else who will do what you need.  


I love advices of hiring other people when they are accompanied by
money orders.  :) 

This isn't a major undertaking to add this header.  There shouldn't be 
an instance where a professional web designer can't come up with a 
way to add a header to a request (either via global config, an .htaccess, 
or via a server-side scripting command).  If I am wrong about that 
statement, REAL XHTML was doomed to fail from the day it

required a content-type other than text/html.


I think your point of view is valid somehow but a bit idealistic.
Is valid because it is better for UA to know up front what it 
needs to parse : HTML, XHTML, SVG, etc.  

It is idealistic because, say, if you will put following in 
your .htaccess: 

AddType foo/bar .html 


it will do nothing on your site (you can try).
This setting is managed by httpd.conf of the whole
Apache server (if I recall this correctly).
(and ForceType may not work at all on 
servers of your type)


Trust me there are many practical needs where
self descriptive document is highly desirable.

Think about this: 
All UAs will correctly present file
some.png even it contains jpeg bits. 
Even if server reports image/x-png content-type 
for it. 

It is very old tradition in software design - 
all file formats contain identification of the

content type in some form - usually first 256 bytes
is enough to determine type. So why html should be an 
exception of this rule?


Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Robert Brodrecht]

On Mar 10, 2007, at 9:40 PM, Matthew Ratzloff wrote:
I don't care about DTD, but DOCTYPE is established, so it seems  
strange to
trash it in favor of something new when the benefit is questionable  
(as

far as I can tell).


I don't think anyone wants to trash the DOCTYPE in light of the  
current landscape.  The problem is that the IE team wants ANOTHER  
switch to turn on Super-Standards Mode.



If DTD is out, bring back the deprecated "version" attribute that it
replaced.  Assuming there is only one version of HTML 5.0, the  
following

would work:


...


All attributes optional, obviously.



That's a great idea.  That solves not only the versioning system, but  
could solve the IE Super-Standards Mode switch (though I don't think  
the "mode" attribute needs to be there... no one wants to  
specifically render in quirksmode, I'd think).  Again, my worry is  
that W3C doesn't implement it.  My header idea would go above W3C's  
and WHATWG's heads.  That means that it doesn't have to be in any  
published spec (and it shouldn't be, IMO).  It's just something to  
tell IE how to treat the content (the same way we tell browsers to  
render as XML, charsets, caching, etc).  There is really no reason it  
needs to be in any specification.  However, if we can solve the  
missing versioning problem, it could be dual purpose (assuming W3C  
implements it in their recommendation).


--
Robert 

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Matthew Ratzloff]

I don't care about DTD, but DOCTYPE is established, so it seems strange to
trash it in favor of something new when the benefit is questionable (as
far as I can tell).  It is also evident to me that there needs to be some
kind of versioning--consistent rendering shouldn't be a moving target.

If DTD is out, bring back the deprecated "version" attribute that it
replaced.  Assuming there is only one version of HTML 5.0, the following
would work:


...


All attributes optional, obviously.

-Matt

> Browsers render in quirksmode by default.  That's been established.
> At this point WHATWG has already rejected DTDs in DOCTYPE and seems
> pretty set on not including it.  I myself would rather have some type
> of versioning (DTD or otherwise) in the DOCTYPE.  All I've heard from
> WHATWG is that they don't really even like the DOCTYPE.  If browsers
> didn't use DOCTYPE as the standards mode switch, DOCTYPE probably
> wouldn't even be in WHATWG's HTML 5.
>
> If there is no versioning system, there is no way to specify an
> "alternate standard."
>
> I'm sure most people have heard the saying "Choose your battles."
> Fighting for DTDs or some other type of versioning in the DOCTYPE in
> WHATWG's spec is not a fight that can be won as far as I can tell.
> Having some method to tell people what spec an author is using can be
> won.

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Robert Brodrecht]

On Mar 10, 2007, at 5:24 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:


And yet: web server configuration of headers is not always available.
Public virtual site hosts is a good example.

And more:
Server adminestering and content creation are different roles/ 
activities.

As a rule different people handle these tasks. Requiring both of them
to be involved in proces of creation of valid content will decrease
probability that result will be valid.


People seem to have looked over the part where I suggested it could  
be either a header or *an http-equiv meta tag.*  The meta tag cuts  
out the backend developer / server admin.  Furthermore, if you have a  
need and your host or backend developer is not willing to honor that  
request, you are hiring the wrong people and you should find someone  
else who will do what you need.  This isn't a major undertaking to  
add this header.  There shouldn't be an instance where a professional  
web designer can't come up with a way to add a header to a request  
(either via global config, an .htaccess, or via a server-side  
scripting command).  If I am wrong about that statement, REAL XHTML  
was doomed to fail from the day it required a content-type other than  
text/html.


--
Robert 

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Robert Brodrecht]

On Mar 10, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Matthew Ratzloff wrote:

The seem to serve the purpose.  If there are two HTML 5  
specifications,
browser makers can come together to decide which one to support by  
default

when no DOCTYPE is present.  Developers who would prefer the alternate
standard could use the appropriate DOCTYPE.


Browsers render in quirksmode by default.  That's been established.   
At this point WHATWG has already rejected DTDs in DOCTYPE and seems  
pretty set on not including it.  I myself would rather have some type  
of versioning (DTD or otherwise) in the DOCTYPE.  All I've heard from  
WHATWG is that they don't really even like the DOCTYPE.  If browsers  
didn't use DOCTYPE as the standards mode switch, DOCTYPE probably  
wouldn't even be in WHATWG's HTML 5.


If there is no versioning system, there is no way to specify an  
"alternate standard."


I'm sure most people have heard the saying "Choose your battles."   
Fighting for DTDs or some other type of versioning in the DOCTYPE in  
WHATWG's spec is not a fight that can be won as far as I can tell.   
Having some method to tell people what spec an author is using can be  
won.



--
Robert 

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Andrew Fedoniouk]

- Original Message - 
From: "Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch



Matthew Ratzloff wrote:

Relying on headers is a good way to get people to ignore that part of the
specification.  Web designers don't want to worry about headers and
.htaccess files.  It has to be syntactic.


I think expecting the mass of web designers to worry about doctypes
isn't much less optimistic than expecting them to worry about headers.
Web designs frequently break quite seriously because web authors think
that documents sent over the wire are defined entirely within the
document text itself. e.g. Web authors often seem to imagine a charset
defined in  is determinative, and end up serving gibberish. Like
it or not, effective web delivery depends on correct HTTP headers.


Opposite statement is correct too:

"Web authors often seem to imagine a charset
defined in HTTP headers is determinative, and end up serving gibberish"

There are many cases when sequence of bytes with some markup is
the only thing that is available.

Think about partial content updates, "ajax" (or "ahjacs"?) kind of 
scenarios.


And yet: web server configuration of headers is not always available.
Public virtual site hosts is a good example.

And more:
Server adminestering and content creation are different roles/activities.
As a rule different people handle these tasks. Requiring both of them
to be involved in proces of creation of valid content will decrease
probability that result will be valid.

It is better if markup itself will be descriptive enough.

BTW: why not to use ... envelope
instead of ?
 is an optional element in HTML so "old"
browsers will switch to quirks mode for the  content.
And html5 UAs will know what to do with it.
So this  element is pretty backward compatible solution.

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis]

Matthew Ratzloff wrote:
> Relying on headers is a good way to get people to ignore that part of the
> specification.  Web designers don't want to worry about headers and
> .htaccess files.  It has to be syntactic.

I think expecting the mass of web designers to worry about doctypes
isn't much less optimistic than expecting them to worry about headers.
Web designs frequently break quite seriously because web authors think
that documents sent over the wire are defined entirely within the
document text itself. e.g. Web authors often seem to imagine a charset
defined in  is determinative, and end up serving gibberish. Like
it or not, effective web delivery depends on correct HTTP headers.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Alexey Feldgendler]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:41:15 +0100, Mihai Sucan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



The tutorials will just say "Use ".


Those are the tutorials for beginners. I was talking about advanced  
tutorials, for developers who want to know "gory" details.


Even for advanced developers, the only sensible recommendation would be to  
use . Description of other possibilities would only be of  
historical value.


Actually, the best standards mode available is the only right mode to  
work in. The other modes are only supported for backward compatibility  
with existing documents.


So, this proposal sounds like "why not make this DOCTYPE switch to an  
even stricter standards rendering mode in IE.next? then we can improve  
IE without breaking existing sites". What this means, is that people  
will create even more modern sites, which will use this new DOCTYPE and  
the improved rendering engine (which will never be perfect). It's going  
to be a loop: newer sites will rely on the newer rendering mode. So,  
with each new version of IE (released every 5-10 years), we will have a  
new DOCTYPE, and a new rendering mode?


Not necessarily. For a long time, Microsoft has been in a position where  
they benefit from the lack of interoperability with other browsers. They  
had no incentive to make their browser standards-compliant. Now times have  
changed, and even Microsoft, as far as I understand, is now willing to  
improve their standards compliance. So I don't think that the  
standards-mode story will repeat -- this happened before due to browser  
wars, where interoperability has been broken intentionally.


Instead of using this DOCTYPE switch, I was even thinking of conditional  
comments, DOM document property, etc. Yet, other methods only add  
complications. If Microsoft considers adding a new rendering mode as a  
must, such that it will not break many sites, then this DOCTYPE is an  
elegant solution. History will repeat itself, no matter how elegant the  
solution might be.


Conditonal comments and similar approaches solve another kind of problem:  
how to allow making pages which do the right thing in good browsers but  
still function in older browsers. OTOH, the DOCTYPE switch allows the  
browser to do the right thing for good pages without breaking the old  
pages.



--
Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Matthew Ratzloff]

Relying on headers is a good way to get people to ignore that part of the
specification.  Web designers don't want to worry about headers and
.htaccess files.  It has to be syntactic.

I don't understand what's wrong with DOCTYPEs, myself.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd";>
http://www.whatwg.org/dtd/html5/strict.dtd";>
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/strict.dtd";>
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>

The seem to serve the purpose.  If there are two HTML 5 specifications,
browser makers can come together to decide which one to support by default
when no DOCTYPE is present.  Developers who would prefer the alternate
standard could use the appropriate DOCTYPE.

-Matt

> On Mar 10, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Mihai Sucan wrote:
>
> We're already using headers to swap between HTML and XHTML (since we
> still call both .html files).  Headers are for telling user agents
> how to deal with content.  It seems like sending a header "X-
> STANDARDS-MODE: HTML5;" (or "WHATWG-HTML5" if W3C's HTML 5 is
> significantly different) or setting an http-equiv meta tag to tell IE
> to use their super-standards mode is cleaner and more desirable as it
> doesn't bloat the spec, and should be more than enough for them.  If
> their standards mode for HTML5 has flaws and they need a NEW switch,
> it can be changed to "X-STANDARDS-MODE: HTML6;" or whatever the
> latest version of HTML is.  This can be set across an entire server
> in a few seconds via config files if needed, or set on a single
> folder via .htaccess files.  If headers are used, that also doesn't
> bloat the file if is is saved on someone's HDD.

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Robert Brodrecht]

Forgot to change the name in my account settings from WHATWG to  
Robert Brodrecht.  Fixed for future reference.


Sorry for any confusion.

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[WHATWG]

On Mar 10, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Mihai Sucan wrote:

There's no way to advertise the document as HTML 5, and it's  
certainly not the purpose of the specification to do so.



This is a problem.  It is especially a problem now that the W3C is  
working on their version of HTML 5.  When I asked Ian Hickson how  
WHATWG would handle divergence in the W3C spec [1], he said he  
"intended to make every effort to keep the two in sync." [2]  While I  
appreciate his effort and I fully believe that he will do his best,  
we are dealing with a body (i.e. the W3C) who have a history of  
stubbornness and unwillingness to work with important members of the  
community. [3]  The future is still undecided, but I don't think it  
is a good idea to operate under the assumption that the W3C will copy  
and paste the entire WHATWG HTML 5 spec.


Even if DTDs are non-normative and antiquated in the HTML 5 spec, it  
at least provides some method for authors to indicate their  
intentions.  If my intention was to write a document conforming to  
HTML 3.2, I can use the HTML 3.2 DTD to tell anyone in the future  
that I was using a certain set of elements.  If browsers pay no  
attention to DTDs, as WHATWG has said time and again, browsers must  
be rendering "the latest and greatest" markup.  If in 50 years, the  
"i" element has been out of use for 40 years, and browsers stop  
rendering that element and validators throw errors on that element,  
the document still conforms to the DTD.  It's not the author's fault  
that the document doesn't perform the way it intended.  Ideally, the  
browser should care about DTDs.


The WHATWG HTML 5 spec provides no way to specify what version / fork  
of HTML the author intended to use.  Even if browsers don't pay  
attention, I think it is a shame that there is no way to specify (if  
for nothing else, to future-proof documents).  I blogged about this  
in more detail. [4]


It seems the WHATWG is staunchly against DTDs, even if it has an  
appropriate use (e.g. emails in this thread talking about XML  
entities).  I've mulled over this awhile.  Since DTDs aren't  
normative in browsers, perhaps a "link" element with a  
"rel=specification" and an "href=http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/ 
current-work/" (for example) would be a new way to say, "this is the  
specification I used to create this document."  It is easier to  
remember than the DOCTYPE DTDs on pervious versions of HTML, and it  
is much more human-readable than DTDs.  It addresses my concerns, and  
doesn't use DTDs.


Now, I don't know if it can be used as a quirksmode switch.  The  
DOCTYPE seems like an ideal place to run the switch.  The problem  
will be if the W3C (or some other as yet unformed working group that  
decides to fork HTML) doesn't implement a DTD-less DOCTYPE.  If the  
switch is the WHATWG HTML5 DOCTYPE, documents authored under W3C HTML  
5 spec will not render in super-standard mode.  Browsers will have to  
have multiple super-standards modes switches depending on what  
version of HTML5 the author uses.


IE asking a working group to provide some new way to specify  
standards mode doesn't make sense.  That is an implementation problem  
that they need to figure out.  It isn't our job to write their  
software.  WHATWG doesn't need to bloat the spec for them.  The IE  
team needs to be creative and find a solution to their problem.


We're already using headers to swap between HTML and XHTML (since we  
still call both .html files).  Headers are for telling user agents  
how to deal with content.  It seems like sending a header "X- 
STANDARDS-MODE: HTML5;" (or "WHATWG-HTML5" if W3C's HTML 5 is  
significantly different) or setting an http-equiv meta tag to tell IE  
to use their super-standards mode is cleaner and more desirable as it  
doesn't bloat the spec, and should be more than enough for them.  If  
their standards mode for HTML5 has flaws and they need a NEW switch,  
it can be changed to "X-STANDARDS-MODE: HTML6;" or whatever the  
latest version of HTML is.  This can be set across an entire server  
in a few seconds via config files if needed, or set on a single  
folder via .htaccess files.  If headers are used, that also doesn't  
bloat the file if is is saved on someone's HDD.



[1] http://blog.whatwg.org/w3c-restarts-html-effort#comment-2020
[2] http://blog.whatwg.org/w3c-restarts-html-effort#comment-2022
[3] http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2006/08/14/angry-indeed/
[4] http://robertdot.org/2007/03/08/html-5-whatwg-versus-w3c.html

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Shadow2531]

On 3/10/07, Mihai Sucan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Le Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:21:11 +0200, Shadow2531 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It seems that even in standards mode, people expect some quirky
> behavior and MS wants to retain the quirkyness even in standards mode.
> If they continue to fix standards mode, they'll break way too many
> sites.

Precisely! That's what I said: the standards mode in IE is rather quirky.
However, I do *not* buy it: I don't believe they'll magically come up with
IE.next having a "strict standards mode" which is up-to-par with the
standards mode in, say, Opera. Even if they do, don't think the standards
mode in Opera/Gecko/whatever is perfect either. They all have quirks. But
... because we are talking about IE, we will again end up having sites
relying on the "strict standards mode", and again Microsoft would break
way too many sites if they change the rendering in this new mode. It's an
endless loop. (see one of my previous replies to this thread)

> That's what I got out of the video.

That's correct. I did understand relatively the same.


You make a good point. It could very well be an endless loop and
there's no guarantee (or even past evidience to show) that IE's new
standards mode would be up to par.

I guess at the least, it shows the desperate need to do something about IE.

--
burnout426

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Mihai Sucan]

Le Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:21:11 +0200, Shadow2531 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a  
écrit:



On 3/10/07, Mihai Sucan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

actually I'm skeptical about this. First impression I had reading
the first post was "hey, do we need yet another switch?". What's
"super-duper" standards mode after all?


From  
,

I got that  the standard doctypes we have now that trigger standards
mode in IE are a problem.

It seems that even in standards mode, people expect some quirky
behavior and MS wants to retain the quirkyness even in standards mode.
If they continue to fix standards mode, they'll break way too many
sites.


Precisely! That's what I said: the standards mode in IE is rather quirky.  
However, I do *not* buy it: I don't believe they'll magically come up with  
IE.next having a "strict standards mode" which is up-to-par with the  
standards mode in, say, Opera. Even if they do, don't think the standards  
mode in Opera/Gecko/whatever is perfect either. They all have quirks. But  
... because we are talking about IE, we will again end up having sites  
relying on the "strict standards mode", and again Microsoft would break  
way too many sites if they change the rendering in this new mode. It's an  
endless loop. (see one of my previous replies to this thread)



That's what I got out of the video.


That's correct. I did understand relatively the same.



--
http://www.robodesign.ro
ROBO Design - We bring you the future

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Shadow2531]

On 3/10/07, Mihai Sucan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

actually I'm skeptical about this. First impression I had reading
the first post was "hey, do we need yet another switch?". What's
"super-duper" standards mode after all?



From 
,

I got that  the standard doctypes we have now that trigger standards
mode in IE are a problem.

It seems that even in standards mode, people expect some quirky
behavior and MS wants to retain the quirkyness even in standards mode.
If they continue to fix standards mode, they'll break way too many
sites.

It seems that they are searching for a way to trigger a real standards
mode without retaining any of those quirks and without messing with
normal standards mode.

, could be used by IE to trigger a standards mode minus
any quirks.

In short, IE's standards mode is not really a standards mode. It's
just a less quirky quirks mode. They want a way to move on with
following standards without affecting the current standards mode.

So, IE would have quirks mode, standards mode and a strict standards mode.

As for other browsers that still retain a few IE compatibilities in
standards mode, when they see , that might be their
chance to ditch any behavior that was just added in to be compatible
with IE. (but that depends)

But, mainly, it'd be a tool for MS to move on. For other browsers,
just keep the bug fixing coming.

That's what I got out of the video.

--
burnout426

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Henri Sivonen]

On Mar 10, 2007, at 15:43, Elliotte Harold wrote:


Alexey Feldgendler wrote:


The tutorials will just say "Use ".


What are those of us who wish to use XML tools on our documents  
supposed to use?


 if you are using XML tools with an HTML5 parser.

No doctype if you are using XHTML5 and targeting an XML parser.

We will need a real DTD at some point, to declare the entities if  
nothing else.


Straight UTF-8 should be used for interchange on the XML side.





Browsers won't read arbitrary DTDs by system ID. OTOH, if you want to  
activate the hacks for enabling XHTML 1.0 entities, you need to use  
an XHTML 1.0 public ID. A new previously unknown public ID won't work.


I know some browser-centric folks here just hate DTDs and schemas  
of any kind; but we will need them, even if the browsers don't.


For Web content, browsers matter and the reality is that DTDs don't  
work.


We will create and use them, even if there's no normative DTD in  
the spec.


The spec doesn't need to say anything normative about private (non- 
Web) use. If it is between you and your own entity resolver, using a  
DTD with an identifier of your choice is fine. However, before  
serving documents on the Web, you'd need to parse and reserialize so  
that the serialization that is sent to the public network does not  
have DTD dependencies.


--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Mihai Sucan]

Le Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:39:46 +0200, Jorgen Horstink  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:



On Mar 10, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Mihai Sucan wrote:


Adding a new DOCTYPE switch is not a solution to Microsoft's problem.


As far as I understand it, the new DOCTYPE switch is meant to 'tell' to  
browser the document follows the HTML5 specification. HTML5 is set up to  
be backwards compatible with HTML4 documents. The opposite does not  
hold. There must be at least one new DOCTYPE to 'tell' the browser HTML5  
is being served.
 seems to be a suitable candidate. This doctype can be  
used by vendors to proxy the content to the right rendering engine.  
Vendors can either rebuild a new engine from scratch, or improve  
specific parts of their rendering engine.


I believe this is wrong.

This DOCTYPE is *not* meant to 'tell'/inform/advertise the document as  
HTML5. It's definitely not the case, see the FAQ [1].


For one, HTML5 is a specification defining new features, and redefining  
parsing, breaking the SGML and XML rules. All the error recovery, and all  
the parsing rules are picked so that an implementation of HTML 5 will  
properly support HTML 4 as used today on the majority of web sites.  
Backwards compatibility is the key. Of course, it's utopic to believe that  
a specification can be written to accomodate 100% of all the web pages  
found. Yet, HTML 5 does provide parsing algorithms that work on the  
majority of code found on the web.


There's no way to advertise the document as HTML 5, and it's certainly not  
the purpose of the specification to do so.



(If I am wrong, an expert should correct me.)


[1] http://blog.whatwg.org/faq/#doctype



--
http://www.robodesign.ro
ROBO Design - We bring you the future

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Elliotte Harold]

Simon Pieters wrote:


Why would you need to declare entities, though?


If you don't define entities, then the parser can't resolve them. This 
is for entities such as © and ™. There are only five entities 
that XML parsers recognize out of the box without a DTD: &, <, 
>, ', and ".


--
Elliotte Rusty Harold  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Elliotte Harold]

Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:

Then you're still relying on the UA reading the DTD, which it doesn't 
have to. What use is a DTD if it doesn't need to be read and has no 
nominative value?



It's my user agent and it will read the DTD. One more time:

It's not just browsers out there!

Browsers that don't want to read the DTD don't have to, but DTDs will be 
essential for parsing XHTML5 with generic XML tools such as libxml and 
Xerces.


--
Elliotte Rusty Harold  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Simon Pieters]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:43:44 +0100, Elliotte Harold  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Alexey Feldgendler wrote:


The tutorials will just say "Use ".



What are those of us who wish to use XML tools on our documents supposed  
to use? We will need a real DTD at some point, to declare the entities  
if nothing else. We will not be able to use .


"" is for text/html, not for XML. For XML you could either  
drop the doctype altogether, or, if you really want to point to a DTD, you  
could just use the system identifier (the public identifier won't do  
anyone any good), or you could use the internal subset.


Why would you need to declare entities, though?

--
Simon Pieters

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Geoffrey Sneddon]

On 10 Mar 2007, at 13:43, Elliotte Harold wrote:


Alexey Feldgendler wrote:


The tutorials will just say "Use ".


What are those of us who wish to use XML tools on our documents  
supposed to use? We will need a real DTD at some point, to declare  
the entities if nothing else. We will not be able to use html>.


Then you're still relying on the UA reading the DTD, which it doesn't  
have to. What use is a DTD if it doesn't need to be read and has no  
nominative value?



- Geoffrey Sneddon

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Elliotte Harold]

Alexey Feldgendler wrote:


The tutorials will just say "Use ".



What are those of us who wish to use XML tools on our documents supposed 
to use? We will need a real DTD at some point, to declare the entities 
if nothing else. We will not be able to use .


Possibly this could be two-fold. E.g there could be both




and something like




I know some browser-centric folks here just hate DTDs and schemas of any 
kind; but we will need them, even if the browsers don't. We will create 
and use them, even if there's no normative DTD in the spec.


One thing that's struck me in working with the spec over the last few 
days is just how hard it is to follow the various content models, and 
how much simpler most of them would be to read if they were described in 
a RELAX NG schema or a DTD.



--
Elliotte Rusty Harold  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Mihai Sucan]

Le Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:27:32 +0200, Alexey Feldgendler  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:


On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:16:09 +0100, Mihai Sucan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:


Alexey, actually I'm skeptical about this. First impression I had  
reading the first post was "hey, do we need yet another switch?".  
What's "super-duper" standards mode after all?


How will tutorials look:

1. For quirks mode use no DOCTYPE.
2. For standards mode use one of the following DOCTYPEs:
"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd";>

3. For "super-duper" standards mode use the following DOCTYPE:



The tutorials will just say "Use ".


Those are the tutorials for beginners. I was talking about advanced  
tutorials, for developers who want to know "gory" details.


My point is: we either want it, or not, what we have today called as  
"standards mode" is also buggy (each browser has its own set of  
rendering bugs). If IE adds the third level of rendering, then we have  
yet another DOCTYPE switch.


Microsoft needs to make the improvements in the current standards mode  
- as they did now with IE 7. They need to continue this.


The reason why modes other than the best standards mode exist is that a  
significant number of existing documents are written while keeping the  
non-standard browser behavior in mind, and it's unacceptable to change  
the rendering of those documents dramatically.


Actually, the best standards mode available is the only right mode to  
work in. The other modes are only supported for backward compatibility  
with existing documents.


Right, and we already have one. It's the one we trigger right now with  
both of the following DOCTYPEs:


"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd";>



It's called "standards mode" for a reason. All the browsers fix and  
improve their standards mode rendering.


Here's how I see things (there are many details, which I probably forgot  
about right now):


(leaving aside the Netscape legacy)

1. There's IE with quirks render mode: ugly, damaged, really bad rendering.
2. There are other browsers (Opera, Geckos, WebKits) which also have  
quirks rendering mode, mimmicking and reverse-engineering quirks mode from  
IE.
3. There's standards mode in IE which is a tad better currently, compared  
to its quirks mode.
4. There's standards mode in the other browsers as well, which is far  
ahead compared to IE "standards" mode.
5. The other browsers, having little market share, have the liberty of  
improving their standards mode rendering, without annoying many users.  
Their users are more aware of the problems, why sites break, etc.
6. There are millions of pages relying on broken quirks mode rendering  
from IE (and legacy Netscape 4).
7. There's a new wave of "modern/cool/awesome" sites (including mine)  
relying on broken standards mode rendering in IE 6 and IE 7 (I still  
dislike it's rendering).
8. If Microsoft improves standards support in IE.next, in standards mode,  
it breaks existing modern sites.


So, this proposal sounds like "why not make this DOCTYPE switch to an even  
stricter standards rendering mode in IE.next? then we can improve IE  
without breaking existing sites". What this means, is that people will  
create even more modern sites, which will use this new DOCTYPE and the  
improved rendering engine (which will never be perfect). It's going to be  
a loop: newer sites will rely on the newer rendering mode. So, with each  
new version of IE (released every 5-10 years), we will have a new DOCTYPE,  
and a new rendering mode?


Instead of using this DOCTYPE switch, I was even thinking of conditional  
comments, DOM document property, etc. Yet, other methods only add  
complications. If Microsoft considers adding a new rendering mode as a  
must, such that it will not break many sites, then this DOCTYPE is an  
elegant solution. History will repeat itself, no matter how elegant the  
solution might be.


Probably I don't really like this proposal very much only because it's a  
solution for *this* very moment, forgetting the fact that rendering bugs,  
and sites that rely on the bugs, will exist forever (a constant problem).




--
http://www.robodesign.ro
ROBO Design - We bring you the future

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Alexey Feldgendler]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:16:09 +0100, Mihai Sucan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:


Alexey, actually I'm skeptical about this. First impression I had  
reading the first post was "hey, do we need yet another switch?". What's  
"super-duper" standards mode after all?


How will tutorials look:

1. For quirks mode use no DOCTYPE.
2. For standards mode use one of the following DOCTYPEs:
"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd";>

3. For "super-duper" standards mode use the following DOCTYPE:



The tutorials will just say "Use ".

My point is: we either want it, or not, what we have today called as  
"standards mode" is also buggy (each browser has its own set of  
rendering bugs). If IE adds the third level of rendering, then we have  
yet another DOCTYPE switch.


Microsoft needs to make the improvements in the current standards mode -  
as they did now with IE 7. They need to continue this.


The reason why modes other than the best standards mode exist is that a  
significant number of existing documents are written while keeping the  
non-standard browser behavior in mind, and it's unacceptable to change the  
rendering of those documents dramatically.


Actually, the best standards mode available is the only right mode to work  
in. The other modes are only supported for backward compatibility with  
existing documents.



--
Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Keryx Web]

Alexey Feldgendler wrote:

There would be replies if your idea was incomplete or controversial, but 
actually it seems like everyone
agrees. What worries me is whether there is a chance that Microsoft 

actually does what's
suggested (and whether someone in Microsoft who is in position to influence this 

decision

actually finds out about this idea and gets convinced).



So, has anyone mailed Molly H? Isn't she supposed to work with standards 
compliance issues within MS?


Personally I think the best route to go for MS is to fix all bugs and 
make "Standards Compliance Mode" truly compliant. And perhaps mimic FFox 
and have an "almost compliance mode" for transitional doctypes, behaving 
the same way as FFox of course when they see one.


Let's not give MS an excuse to keep behaving badly with HTML 4.01 and 
XHTML 1!



Lars Gunther

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Jorgen Horstink]

On Mar 10, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Mihai Sucan wrote:

Le Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:46:15 +0200, Alexey Feldgendler  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:


On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:53:09 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



This is a plain simple yet brilliant idea.



Thanks. :)
I'm sad there aren't more replies to this wonderful idea,  
though! :-P


There would be replies if your idea was incomplete or  
controversial, but actually it seems like everyone agrees. What  
worries me is whether there is a chance that Microsoft actually  
does what's suggested (and whether someone in Microsoft who is in  
position to influence this decision actually finds out about this  
idea and gets convinced).


I did follow this discussion since the first email. I saw that the  
idea is very well welcomed.


Alexey, actually I'm skeptical about this. First impression I had  
reading the first post was "hey, do we need yet another switch?".  
What's "super-duper" standards mode after all?


How will tutorials look:

1. For quirks mode use no DOCTYPE.

2. For standards mode use one of the following DOCTYPEs:

http://www.w3.org/ 
TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd">

...

3. For "super-duper" standards mode use the following DOCTYPE:




My point is: we either want it, or not, what we have today called  
as "standards mode" is also buggy (each browser has its own set of  
rendering bugs). If IE adds the third level of rendering, then we  
have yet another DOCTYPE switch.


Microsoft needs to make the improvements in the current standards  
mode - as they did now with IE 7. They need to continue this.


indeed



Adding a new DOCTYPE switch is not a solution to Microsoft's problem.


As far as I understand it, the new DOCTYPE switch is meant to 'tell'  
to browser the document follows the HTML5 specification. HTML5 is set  
up to be backwards compatible with HTML4 documents. The opposite does  
not hold. There must be at least one new DOCTYPE to 'tell' the  
browser HTML5 is being served.
 seems to be a suitable candidate. This doctype can be  
used by vendors to proxy the content to the right rendering engine.  
Vendors can either rebuild a new engine from scratch, or improve  
specific parts of their rendering engine.




However, if this proposal makes it into IE.next, it wouldn't be a  
problem (since it triggers standards mode in the other browsers,  
and it's fairly safe to use).



--
http://www.robodesign.ro
ROBO Design - We bring you the future

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Mihai Sucan]

Le Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:46:15 +0200, Alexey Feldgendler  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:


On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:53:09 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



This is a plain simple yet brilliant idea.



Thanks. :)
I'm sad there aren't more replies to this wonderful idea, though! :-P


There would be replies if your idea was incomplete or controversial, but  
actually it seems like everyone agrees. What worries me is whether there  
is a chance that Microsoft actually does what's suggested (and whether  
someone in Microsoft who is in position to influence this decision  
actually finds out about this idea and gets convinced).


I did follow this discussion since the first email. I saw that the idea is  
very well welcomed.


Alexey, actually I'm skeptical about this. First impression I had reading  
the first post was "hey, do we need yet another switch?". What's  
"super-duper" standards mode after all?


How will tutorials look:

1. For quirks mode use no DOCTYPE.

2. For standards mode use one of the following DOCTYPEs:

"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd";>

...

3. For "super-duper" standards mode use the following DOCTYPE:




My point is: we either want it, or not, what we have today called as  
"standards mode" is also buggy (each browser has its own set of rendering  
bugs). If IE adds the third level of rendering, then we have yet another  
DOCTYPE switch.


Microsoft needs to make the improvements in the current standards mode -  
as they did now with IE 7. They need to continue this.


Adding a new DOCTYPE switch is not a solution to Microsoft's problem.

However, if this proposal makes it into IE.next, it wouldn't be a problem  
(since it triggers standards mode in the other browsers, and it's fairly  
safe to use).



--
http://www.robodesign.ro
ROBO Design - We bring you the future

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Alexey Feldgendler]

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:53:09 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> This is a plain simple yet brilliant idea.

> Thanks. :)
> I'm sad there aren't more replies to this wonderful idea, though! :-P

There would be replies if your idea was incomplete or controversial, but 
actually it seems like everyone agrees. What worries me is whether there is a 
chance that Microsoft actually does what's suggested (and whether someone in 
Microsoft who is in position to influence this decision actually finds out 
about this idea and gets convinced).


-- 
Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Shadow2531]

 triggering super-duper, standards mode sounds great. :)

--
burnout426

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Asbjørn Ulsberg]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:08:09 +0100, Alexey Feldgendler  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



So I thought, what about using:  as the new switch?


This is a plain simple yet brilliant idea.


Thanks. :)

Other browsers can also use  as an indication to stop  
applying certain hacks which make them diverge from standards in favor  
of interoperability with IE.


Yes they can. As long as all browsers take the oportunity to start anew  
and fresh with HTML5 (or whatever it will be named), it can open up a lot  
of possibilities for all implementors. I'm sad there aren't more replies  
to this wonderful idea, though! :-P


--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Asbjørn Ulsberg]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 23:30:05 +0100, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



Yeah, I suppose that could work.


Cool. So do I. :)


FYI: my site is still .nl:

   http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/06/standard-compliant-ie


Yea, sorry. And thanks for the pointer to the old discussion.

--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Alexey Feldgendler]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:47:34 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



I'm not sure if it has been discussed earlier, but after seeing Chris
Wilson's talk on «Browser Wars Episode II: Attack of the DOMs»[1] I think
it's pretty obvious that Internet Explorer needs a new switch of some
sort, to be allowed to implement and fix the DOM, JavaScript, CSS1-3 etc.
without breaking backward compatibility. At least that's what Chris  
Wilson

says.

And I agree. Internet Explorer needs a new switch. So I thought, what
about using:



as the new switch?


This is a plain simple yet brilliant idea.

Other browsers can also use  as an indication to stop  
applying certain hacks which make them diverge from standards in favor of  
interoperability with IE.



--
Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:47:34 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

There has been some discussion about using MIME types (e.g.
'application/xhtml+xml') as a new switch (I distantly recall it going on
at annevankesteren.no, but I can't find it at the moment), but since it's
very unlikely that Internet Explorer will support that for a long time,
and since HTML5 is backward compatible with HTML4, the HTML5 DOCTYPE  
might be a much better option.


Yeah, I suppose that could work. FYI: my site is still .nl:

  http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/06/standard-compliant-ie


--
Anne van Kesteren

[whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

[Asbjørn Ulsberg]

(I sent this to the list already, but I think it didn't appear because I  
sent it with the wrong e-mail address.)


I'm not sure if it has been discussed earlier, but after seeing Chris
Wilson's talk on «Browser Wars Episode II: Attack of the DOMs»[1] I think
it's pretty obvious that Internet Explorer needs a new switch of some
sort, to be allowed to implement and fix the DOM, JavaScript, CSS1-3 etc.
without breaking backward compatibility. At least that's what Chris Wilson
says.

And I agree. Internet Explorer needs a new switch. So I thought, what
about using:

   

as the new switch? If HTML5 will be ratified into a stable standard
document, perhaps in the W3C, it should be a viable target for the
Internet Explorer team although they are not actively participating in the
development of the standard. And as such, the HTML5 DOCTYPE can be used as
a new switch to allow for an even stricter and more correct implementation
of CSS, HTML and so on.

There has been some discussion about using MIME types (e.g.
'application/xhtml+xml') as a new switch (I distantly recall it going on
at annevankesteren.no, but I can't find it at the moment), but since it's
very unlikely that Internet Explorer will support that for a long time,
and since HTML5 is backward compatible with HTML4, the HTML5 DOCTYPE might
be a much better option.

So, what do you think?

___
[1]  



--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»