RE: [classlib][html] HTML 3.2 or 4.01

2006-07-24 Thread Ivanov, Alexey A
: Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:44 AM To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [classlib][html] HTML 3.2 or 4.01 I agree that we should implement both if it possible. Since we can easile determine the HTML version by DTD in the header. SY, Alexey 2006/7/22, Miguel Montes [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [classlib][html] HTML 3.2 or 4.01

2006-07-23 Thread shen yu
Yes, AFAIK, SUN still does not support DTD 4.01 in JAVA 6.Refer to [1] May be they will wait for JAVA 7. And many developers are calling for DTD 4.01 support. IMO, it's a good idea to support DTD 4.01 in our project. Best regards [1]http://download.java.net/jdk6/docs/api/ 2006/7/22, Mikhail

Re: [classlib][html] HTML 3.2 or 4.01

2006-07-23 Thread Mikhail Fursov
BTW there are a lot of other RFEs: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/top25_rfes.do Sun is asked to implement. Some of them are very interesting and could be implemented in Harmony as JDK extentions: struct/hotcode replacement/ftp support/logging support with ability to remove it from code like

Re: [classlib][html] HTML 3.2 or 4.01

2006-07-23 Thread spark
Mikhail Fursov 写道: BTW there are a lot of other RFEs: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/top25_rfes.do Sun is asked to implement. Some of them are very interesting and could be implemented in Harmony as JDK extentions: struct/hotcode replacement/ftp support/logging support with ability to remove

Re: [classlib][html] HTML 3.2 or 4.01

2006-07-23 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
Can we get Java 5 done first? ;) geir Mikhail Fursov wrote: BTW there are a lot of other RFEs: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/top25_rfes.do Sun is asked to implement. Some of them are very interesting and could be implemented in Harmony as JDK extentions: struct/hotcode replacement/ftp

Re: [classlib][html] HTML 3.2 or 4.01

2006-07-23 Thread Spark Shen
Geir Magnusson Jr 写道: Can we get Java 5 done first? ;) geir Yes, of course. :-) Mikhail Fursov wrote: BTW there are a lot of other RFEs: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/top25_rfes.do Sun is asked to implement. Some of them are very interesting and could be implemented in Harmony as

Re: [classlib][html] HTML 3.2 or 4.01

2006-07-22 Thread Alexey Petrenko
I agree that we should implement both if it possible. Since we can easile determine the HTML version by DTD in the header. SY, Alexey 2006/7/22, Miguel Montes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: HI all: Intel has just contributed javax.swing.text.html, based on HTML 4.01. Sun's implementation, on the other

Re: [classlib][html] HTML 3.2 or 4.01

2006-07-22 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
+1 Alexey Petrenko wrote: I agree that we should implement both if it possible. Since we can easile determine the HTML version by DTD in the header. SY, Alexey 2006/7/22, Miguel Montes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: HI all: Intel has just contributed javax.swing.text.html, based on HTML 4.01.

Re: [classlib][html] HTML 3.2 or 4.01

2006-07-21 Thread Mikhail Fursov
Which one should we follow? ¿Both? The parser behavior is parameterized by a DTD, so perhaps we should provide a 3.2 DTD, to be compatible with Sun, and a 4.01 DTD. Any ideas? Miguel Montes This RFE is about 7 years old and AFAIK SUN does not want to fix it in the nearest feature:

Re: [classlib][html] HTML 3.2 or 4.01

2006-07-21 Thread Andrew Zhang
On 7/22/06, Mikhail Fursov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which one should we follow? ¿Both? The parser behavior is parameterized by a DTD, so perhaps we should provide a 3.2 DTD, to be compatible with Sun, and a 4.01 DTD. Any ideas? Miguel Montes This RFE is about 7 years old and AFAIK SUN