On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 01:30:41 +0200, Mike Dierken [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:26:33 +0200, Dimitri Glazkov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for the tags attribute discussion, you guys just invented a
class attribute.
Well, that also was one suggestion, but 'class' is
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:44:48 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting ROBO Design [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
Nobody in his right mind would use hasFeature to check for support. It
is merely
there for compatibility and joy.
...
How else can you check if XHTML support is
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:55:05 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting ROBO Design [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
You're talking about class names but you're not referring to any
particular
language. And that is the problem. There might very well be a language
which
defines
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:30:26 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting ROBO Design [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
If you knew it was taken why were you referring to XHTML 2 instead of
DOM Level
2 HTML? Checking for the feature XHTML with version 2.0 means that
you are
checking
Mike Dierken wrote:
Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
As for the tags attribute discussion, you guys just
invented a class attribute.
Well, that also was one suggestion, but 'class' is mostly for user interface
rendering, rather than purely semantic meaning. But it may not be necessary
or workable to
