On Apr 16, 2008, at 10:47, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
I would like to put a grain of salt here and would love HTML5
passionates to answer:
why is the whole HTML5 effort not a movement towards a really
enhanced parser instead of trying to redefine fully HTML successors?
text/html has immense
On Apr 16, 2008, at 12:58, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
In fact, the reason why the proportion of Web pages that get parsed
as XML is negligible is that the XML approach totally failed to
plug into the existing text/html network effects[...]
My hypothesis here is that this problem is mostly a
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:36:49 +0200, William F Hammond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
About 7 years ago there was argument in these circles about whether
correct xhtml+mathml could be served as text/html.
As we all know, a clear boundary was drawn, presumably because it
was onerous for browsers to
On Apr 16, 2008, at 9:36 AM, William F Hammond wrote:
About 7 years ago there was argument in these circles about whether
correct xhtml+mathml could be served as text/html.
As we all know, a clear boundary was drawn, presumably because it
was onerous for browsers to sniff incoming content
Dnia 10-04-2008, Cz o godzinie 09:51 +, Ian Hickson pisze:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Paul Topping wrote:
Elements whose namespaces aren't known should be handled like any other
unknown HTML element. I believe the common way for user agents to handle
an unknown element is basically to
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:01:49 +0200, William F Hammond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Web.
Really!?!
Yes, see for instance:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/1248.html
It's time for user agents to stop supporting bogus
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Chris Chiasson wrote:
So, have the HTML 5 people already made up their minds, where the
discussion that continues today has no chance of maintaining the XML
serialization?
Nothing is yet set in stone for HTML5 [1].
The XHTML variant of HTML isn't going away, though.
On Thursday 10th April 2008, Ian Hickson wrote:
SVG radicals aren't typographically acceptable either.
You really want to use fonts for this.
Current browsers are clearly better at rendering TrueType
and PostScript fonts at small sizes than equivalent shapes
expressed as SVG paths. (This may
