On Mon, March 12, 2007 3:34 pm, ddailey wrote:
> Those who have worked with Canvas for the past several years have probably
> written documents somewhere to explain just why the two specs (SVG and
> Canvas) should not be merged. If someone could point me toward that
> rationale, I will emerge enlig
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 cou
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
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 rende
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
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
