Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> Hixie wrote in https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18669#c31 :
>> > I think it's fine for this not to work in XML, or require XML changes,
>> > or use an attribute like xml:component="" in XML. It's not going to be
Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu-4 wrote:
>
> Yep. I would encourage you to play with XHTML5 (application/xhtml+xml)
> more and report bugs to browsers. When I still had interest in
> application/xhtml+xml (back in 2007?), I got troubled by all the
> differences in the DOM APIs. I think currently most JS fra
efense-in-depth against XSS attacks
in the future.
Yuhong Bao
ious Office teams. We
> expect them to update their products in their next release cycle.
>
>
>
> --Ted Johnson for IEBlog
>
>
>
>
> From: Yuhong Bao [yuhongbao_...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:52
Kornel Lesiński wrote:
>
> Parsing of non-HTML elements is not interoperable between IE and non-IE
> browsers. IE already supports self-closing syntax on prefixed elements,
> but other browsers don't:
>
> http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%3Cbody%3
Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
>>
>> The spec gives:
>>
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/goglobal/cc305154.aspx
>>
>> as the reference for Windows 949. If you click on the higher-byte
>> links, which are supposed to link to further code tables, the l
I agree that the HTML5 DOCTYPE should be optional, but how about expanding it
to the full thing like the HTML 4.01 DOCTYPE?
Yuhong Bao
_
Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon!
http://puzzles.sympatico.msn.ca/chicktionary/index.html
