!DOCTYPE html6 would be an abomination, unless the root element changes to
html6 also :-)
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Kristof
Zelechovskigiecr...@stegny.2a.pl wrote:
!DOCTYPE html6 would be an abomination, unless the root element changes to
html6 also :-)
Also it would trigger quirks mode in many existing browsers, and in
any conforming HTML5 implementation. You'd have to use
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Philip Taylor wrote:
(The HTML5 doctype reflects that in practice there aren't several
independent carefully-separated languages - there's just a single
vaguely-defined mess called HTML, described in a range of
specifications and sometimes not specified at
PM
To: dar...@chaosreigns.com
Cc: whatwg
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Validation
Of course, a lot of legacy content will no longer validate with HTML5
validators; but where is the issue? It will still render. After all,
no one would expect Don Quixote or Hamlet to be valid according to
modern Spanish
Why is it okay for a document to not specify its HTML version?
Do all browsers ignore it?
How should a validator handle lack of HTML version info when the next
standard is released with no DOCTYPE?
Should validators ignore older HTML version numbers which are listed in
DOCTYPES?
Why aren't
Am Montag, den 20.07.2009, 15:01 -0400 schrieb dar...@chaosreigns.com:
Why is it okay for a document to not specify its HTML version?
Because HTML 5 is designed with upwards-compatibility in mind. HTML 6
browsers should read HTML 5 documents just fine.
Do all browsers ignore it?
All modern
On 07/20, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote:
How should a validator handle lack of HTML version info when the next
standard is released with no DOCTYPE?
I assume the validator will probably check for a current version of
HTML. Most of the older versions of HTML are subsets of current
versions.
Am Montag, den 20.07.2009, 16:12 -0400 schrieb dar...@chaosreigns.com:
Say I have some pages on my site that are HTML7, because I know that
IE 10
has pretty good support for it. And I have some other pages that are
in
HTML9 which became a Recommendation 4 years ago but which which IE 10
On 07/20, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote:
Uh-okay. What could various means be ?
Something like:
object src=image.svg
img src=image.png
/object
Why not use a HTML7 and a HTML9 validator in this case ? The HTML 7
validator could check all pages and report those that aren't valid HTML
7. Those
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:27 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 07/20, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote:
Uh-okay. What could various means be ?
Something like:
object src=image.svg
img src=image.png
/object
Why not use a HTML7 and a HTML9 validator in this case ? The HTML 7
validator
On 07/20, Eduard Pascual wrote:
feed/send/pipe/whatever all pages to the HTML7 validator: since HTML9
would be a superset of 7
You didn't mean that, did you? Oh, HTML9 would specify a superset of what
browsers are required to handle gracefully, not actually including
everything from 7 in 9.
W liście Eduard Pascual z dnia poniedziałek 20 lipca 2009:
Browsers are built incrementally. For example, IE10 is very likely to
render properly any page that IE9 had rendered properly (plus some
that IE9 couldn't handle). And IE9 will handle any page that IE8
handles (plus some that are too
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:12 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
Say I have some pages on my site that are HTML7, because I know that IE 10
has pretty good support for it. And I have some other pages that are in
HTML9 which became a Recommendation 4 years ago but which which IE 10
still doesn't
Am Montag, den 20.07.2009, 23:54 +0200 schrieb Paweł Stradomski:
W liście Eduard Pascual z dnia poniedziałek 20 lipca 2009:
Browsers are built incrementally. For example, IE10 is very likely to
render properly any page that IE9 had rendered properly (plus some
that IE9 couldn't handle). And
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Nils Dagsson
Moskoppnils-dagsson-mosk...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
Caveat: This seems to be an IE issue, not an HTML issue. Why ? I checked
the top 8 and bottom 4 sites on that list using the W3C validator and
not a single one would validate. Quite a few
15 matches
Mail list logo
