On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Ian Hickson wrote:
> >> 2.14.1.1.
> >> The spec should probably mention
> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoehrmann-script-types-03.txt or
> >> its
> >> successor around here.
> >
> >I have no idea which section that was, nor which RFC t
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
> Based on the 2006-02-24 version.
>
> 1.14.1.
> The style and script elements in XHTML have a potentially anything goes
> content model. Would it be appropriate for a conformance checker to only pass
> style and script types it knows about (with the pro
I can give you my opinions. Not sure if they match up with Ian's or
not. :)
On Jun 6, 2007, at 2:41 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
* When the data source was initialized from the DOM, will changes
to the datagrid be reflected back to the DOM?
I would expect a DOM data source to be updated.
On Jun 1, 2007, at 09:34, Ian Hickson wrote:
I don't know which section this is talking about.
It was about .
Is it better now?
I think the non-normative intro section still doesn't sufficiently
cover
the relationship to the DOM and the CSS frame tree.
The relationship to CSS will all
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> >
> > I have no idea which section that was, nor which RFC that is (the URI
> > is now dead). Is there an updated link?
>
> The section is now 3.17.1.1. Script languages. (The section numbering in
> the email you quoted is from the 2006-02-24 revision
On Jun 1, 2007, at 02:31, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
1.14.1.
The style and script elements in XHTML have a potentially anything
goes
content model. Would it be appropriate for a conformance checker
to only
pass style and script types it knows about (with
* Ian Hickson wrote:
>> 2.14.1.1.
>> The spec should probably mention
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoehrmann-script-types-03.txt or
>> its
>> successor around here.
>
>I have no idea which section that was, nor which RFC that is (the URI is
>now dead). Is there an updated link?
T
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
> 1.14.1.
> The style and script elements in XHTML have a potentially anything goes
> content model. Would it be appropriate for a conformance checker to only
> pass style and script types it knows about (with the proper content
> model for each type)
Based on the 2006-02-24 version.
1.14.1.
The style and script elements in XHTML have a potentially anything
goes content model. Would it be appropriate for a conformance checker
to only pass style and script types it knows about (with the proper
content model for each type)?
2.14.1.1.
The
