Re: [whatwg] We should not throw DOM Consistency and Infoset compatibility under the bus
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 >> > used in XML much anyway in practice. I've already had browser vendors >> > ask me how they can just drop XML support; I don't think we can, at >> > least not currently, but that's the direction things are going in, not >> > the opposite. >> >> This attitude bothers me. A lot. >> >> I understand that supporting XML alongside HTML is mainly a burden for >> browser vendors and I understand that XML currently doesn't get much >> love from browser vendors. > > Not just browser vendors. Authors rarely if ever use XML for HTML either. I know. XHTML, along with DOM Level 2, are my favorite features to mention when talking about IE8 as a boat anchor, because both are more than 10 years old now! The lack of DOM Level 2 support is probably why jQuery 2.0 no longer supports IE8. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/We-should-not-throw-DOM-Consistency-and-Infoset-compatibility-under-the-bus-tp34887132p34890189.html Sent from the whatwg.org - whatwg mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [whatwg] Wasn't there going to be a strict spec?
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 framework > probably doesn't support XHTML5. AFAIK my favorite features to mention when I talk about how IE8 is a boat anchor is XHTML and DOM Level 2, as they are more than 10 years old! It is unfortunate that MS do not provide any further major upgrades to IE after the version of Windows enters extended support. IE8 was released just before XP entered extended support in April 2009. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Wasn%27t-there-going-to-be-a-strict-spec--tp34283528p34308791.html Sent from the whatwg.org - whatwg mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
[whatwg] Opera should fallback with scripting *disabled* (was Re: Wasn't there going to be a strict spec?)
Karl Dubost writes: > On top of that you can add a layer of madness with user-agent sniffing. I > have documented one we had in Opera > and forced us to recover automatically. *unfortunately*. Can this be done with scripting *disabled*? I am thinking that XHTML can be used as a defense-in-depth against XSS attacks in the future. Yuhong Bao
[whatwg] FW: MSDN Blogs: Contact request: HTML5 parsing, IE10, and Office
> From: t...@microsoft.com > To: yuhongbao_...@hotmail.com > Subject: RE: MSDN Blogs: Contact request: HTML5 parsing, IE10, and Office > Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 15:46:14 + > > > Members of the IE team are in contact with the various 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 PM > To: IEBlog Administration > Subject: MSDN Blogs: Contact request: HTML5 parsing, IE10, and Office > > Subject: HTML5 parsing, IE10, and Office > > Do you know what the Office team will do now that the IE-specific > features that Office HTML relies on has been removed from IE10 > standards mode? Of course, it is not an immediate problem as they have > never generated a DOCTYPE. > > This contact request was sent from MSDN Blogs<http://blogs.msdn.com> by > Yuhong Bao without sharing your email address.
Re: [whatwg] self-closing tags in html5
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%3E%0D%0A%3Cfoo%3Abar%2F%3Eaa%0D%0A%3Cfoo%3Abar%3Ebb%3C%2Ffoo%3Abar%3E > > and IE cannot properly parse unknown non-prefixed elements, except when > (relatively new) workaround is used (http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-shiv): > > http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%3Cbody%3E%0D%0A%3Cfoobar%2F%3Eaa%0D%0A%3Cfoobar%3Ebb%3C%2Ffoobar%3E > FYI, the reason is that IE5 supported mixing foreign XML content into HTML long before HTML5 added this support. It is used for VML for example. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/self-closing-tags-in-html5-tp29813776p31617157.html Sent from the whatwg.org - whatwg mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [whatwg] Better reference for Windows 949?
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 links >> are broken. > > These links seem to work now, so I haven't changed the spec. > > FYI, I was the one who reported this to Michael Kaplan from MS. See his blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/michkap/archive/2011/04/07/10150950.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/michkap/archive/2010/12/31/10109814.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/michkap/archive/2011/01/01/10110567.aspx -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Better-reference-for-Windows-949--tp30641309p31538005.html Sent from the whatwg.org - whatwg mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
[whatwg] HTML5 DOCTYPE
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?icid=htmlsig
