L PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:44 AM
>To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [classlib][html] HTML 3.2 or 4.01
>
>I agree that we should implement both if it possible. Since we can
>easile determine the HTML version by DTD in the header.
>
>SY, Alexey
Geir Magnusson Jr 写道:
Can we get Java 5 done first? ;)
geir
Yes, of course. :-)
Mikhail Fursov wrote:
BTW there are a lot of other RFEs:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/top25_rfes.do Sun is asked to implement.
Some of them are very interesting and could be implemented in Harmony as
JD
Can we get Java 5 done first? ;)
geir
Mikhail Fursov wrote:
> BTW there are a lot of other RFEs:
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/top25_rfes.do Sun is asked to implement.
> Some of them are very interesting and could be implemented in Harmony as
> JDK
> extentions: struct/hotcode replacement/ftp
Mikhail Fursov 写道:
BTW there are a lot of other RFEs:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/top25_rfes.do Sun is asked to implement.
Some of them are very interesting and could be implemented in Harmony
as JDK
extentions: struct/hotcode replacement/ftp support/logging support with
ability to remove i
BTW there are a lot of other RFEs:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/top25_rfes.do Sun is asked to implement.
Some of them are very interesting and could be implemented in Harmony as JDK
extentions: struct/hotcode replacement/ftp support/logging support with
ability to remove it from code like 'asse
Yes, AFAIK, SUN still does not support DTD 4.01 in JAVA 6.Refer to [1]
May be they will wait for JAVA 7. And many
developers are calling for DTD 4.01 support. IMO, it's a good idea to
support DTD 4.01 in our project.
Best regards
[1]http://download.java.net/jdk6/docs/api/
2006/7/22, Mikhail Fu
+1
Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> I agree that we should implement both if it possible. Since we can
> easile determine the HTML version by DTD in the header.
>
> SY, Alexey
>
> 2006/7/22, Miguel Montes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> HI all:
>> Intel has just contributed javax.swing.text.html, based on HTML
I agree that we should implement both if it possible. Since we can
easile determine the HTML version by DTD in the header.
SY, Alexey
2006/7/22, Miguel Montes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
HI all:
Intel has just contributed javax.swing.text.html, based on HTML 4.01. Sun's
implementation, on the other ha
On 7/22/06, Mikhail Fursov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which one should we follow? ¿Both? The parser behavior is parameterized
by
> a DTD, so perhaps we should provide a 3.2 DTD, to be compatible with
Sun,
> and a 4.01 DTD.
> Any ideas?
>
> Miguel Montes
>
This RFE is about 7 years old and AFA
Which one should we follow? ¿Both? The parser behavior is parameterized by
a DTD, so perhaps we should provide a 3.2 DTD, to be compatible with Sun,
and a 4.01 DTD.
Any ideas?
Miguel Montes
This RFE is about 7 years old and AFAIK SUN does not want to fix it in the
nearest feature: http://bugs.
HI all:
Intel has just contributed javax.swing.text.html, based on HTML 4.01. Sun's
implementation, on the other hand, claims to be based on HTML 3.2, although
there are same differences.
¿Which one should we follow? ¿Both? The parser behavior is parameterized by
a DTD, so perhaps we should provid
11 matches
Mail list logo
