On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Simon Pieters wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:44:25 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Simon Pieters wrote:
The spec is now gaining all the remaining stuff from DOM2 HTML, so
this note is incorrect:
Note: The interfaces defined in
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:37:37 +0200, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
nils-dagsson-mosk...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 14.07.2009, 14:46 +0200 schrieb Simon Pieters:
Gecko, WebKit and Opera return true for XHTML/2.0.
Who in the real world actually checks for that ? Wasn't XHTML 2.0
Am Dienstag, den 14.07.2009, 14:46 +0200 schrieb Simon Pieters:
Gecko, WebKit and Opera return true for XHTML/2.0.
Who in the real world actually checks for that ? Wasn't XHTML 2.0 dead
in the snow for some time now ?
Cheers
--
Nils Dagsson Moskopp
http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, Smylers wrote:
The current text suggests that a user-agent may choose to support only
the HTML syntax (not XHTML) but should still return true for
hasFeature(XHTML, 5.0).
If that isn't intended then the requirements for hasFeature() should be
changed to depend on the
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:31:54 +0200, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:34:38 +0200, Smylers smyl...@stripey.com wrote:
The current text suggests that a user-agent may choose to support only
the HTML syntax (not XHTML) but should still return true for
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:34:38 +0200, Smylers smyl...@stripey.com wrote:
The current text suggests that a user-agent may choose to support only
the HTML syntax (not XHTML) but should still return true for
hasFeature(XHTML, 5.0).
If that isn't intended then the requirements for hasFeature()
The current text suggests that a user-agent may choose to support only
the HTML syntax (not XHTML) but should still return true for
hasFeature(XHTML, 5.0).
If that isn't intended then the requirements for hasFeature() should be
changed to depend on the syntaxes chosen to be implemented. If it
