On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, David John Burrowes wrote:
But, I share some of the same concerns (and more) as David Bruant, and
would like to understand why this non-versioned HTML is a good thing.
I keep imagining long, painful support issues.
Non-versioned HTML is the only type of HTML we've
On 08/29/2010 08:00 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David John Burrowes
bain...@davidjohnburrowes.com wrote:
I agree that they don't have access to versioning info from within the
languages.
But, CSS has some sense of versions (CSS, CSS2, and CSS3). This gives me
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:45 PM, fantasai fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
On 08/29/2010 08:00 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David John Burrowes
bain...@davidjohnburrowes.com wrote:
I agree that they don't have access to versioning info from within the
On 29.08.2010 05:15, David John Burrowes wrote:
Hello all,
I wanted to chime in on this discussion. Let me say up front that clearly the
w3c and the browser vendors all are on the same page as you, Ian. I'm not in
the position to be challenging your collective wisdom!
...
With respect to
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David John Burrowes
bain...@davidjohnburrowes.com wrote:
I agree that they don't have access to versioning info from within the
languages.
But, CSS has some sense of versions (CSS, CSS2, and CSS3). This gives me
some ability to say ah, SurfBrowser 1.0 and
On 2010/8/28, at 下午8:52, Scott González wrote:
What percentage of all versions of all browsers do you think fully
support any version of any spec? Saying that browser X supports some
part of CSS2 is no more or less useful than saying browser X supports
some part of CSS as it is defined today
On 08/29/2010 11:33 AM, David John Burrowes wrote:
As I see it, if I'm developing for other major platforms (java, osx, windows,
...) I have a fair degree of certainty which versions of those platforms
support what features, and that's really useful in situations where I'm
targeting (either
On 8/29/10 1:53 PM, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
Most authors don't care about whether or not an implementation supports
an entire, full specification; they just want to know Can I use this
feature in this browser? So saying that all major implementations
support much of CSS 2 to a high degree of
Hello all,
I wanted to chime in on this discussion. Let me say up front that clearly the
w3c and the browser vendors all are on the same page as you, Ian. I'm not in
the position to be challenging your collective wisdom!
But, I share some of the same concerns (and more) as David Bruant, and
What percentage of all versions of all browsers do you think fully
support any version of any spec? Saying that browser X supports some
part of CSS2 is no more or less useful than saying browser X supports
some part of CSS as it is defined today (which is backward compatible
with how it was
I would guess that new features would go in their own spec, like Web
Workers, WebSockets, and so on. If that is the case, you can still say
browser X supports things by naming the specs, e.g. Chrome supports
WebSockets.
~Jonathan Castello
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David John Burrowes
Hi,
Note after 10.1.1 The DOCTYPE :
DOCTYPEs are required for legacy reasons. When omitted, browsers tend
to use a different rendering mode that is incompatible with some
specifications. Including the DOCTYPE in a document ensures that the
browser makes a best-effort attempt at following the
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, David Bruant wrote:
Note after 10.1.1 The DOCTYPE :
DOCTYPEs are required for legacy reasons. When omitted, browsers tend
to use a different rendering mode that is incompatible with some
specifications. Including the DOCTYPE in a document ensures that the
browser makes
Le 25/08/2010 01:15, Ian Hickson a écrit :
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, David Bruant wrote:
Note after 10.1.1 The DOCTYPE :
DOCTYPEs are required for legacy reasons. When omitted, browsers tend
to use a different rendering mode that is incompatible with some
specifications. Including the DOCTYPE in
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, David Bruant wrote:
It's likely that there won't be an HTML6 --
unlikely (likely-won't) doesn't mean that there won't be. The
eventuality should probably not be thrown away that easily. Twenty years
ago, who could have predicted what happened until today ? Can we
On 8/24/10, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, David Bruant wrote:
It's likely that there won't be an HTML6 --
unlikely (likely-won't) doesn't mean that there won't be. The
eventuality should probably not be thrown away that easily. Twenty years
ago, who could have
16 matches
Mail list logo
