W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2007

Re: New elements vs. Trident

From: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:33:43 +0200
Message-ID: <46EE3BE7.2000302@design-noir.de>
To: Dean Edwards <dean@edwards.name>
CC: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>

Dean Edwards wrote:
> 
> Dão Gottwald wrote:
>> Dean Edwards wrote:
>>> html\:newelement {
>>>  /* some style */
>>> }
>>
>> IE doesn't handle XHTML, so I suppose you mean good old HTML with 
>> pseudo-namespaces?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>>> Cross-browser styling looks like this:
>>>
>>> html\:newelement, newelement {
>>>  /* some style */
>>> }
>>
>> The first selector should match in any browser in HTML mode, the 
>> second selector should match in any browser in XML mode if html is the 
>> default namespace in that CSS file ... so what are we talking about?
>>
> 
> We are talking about ways to get IE to style unrecognised elements for 
> graceful degradation. See the beginning of this thread.

I was asking another question. Are we talking about an XML content-type 
for all browsers (obviously not the case because of IE), text/html for 
all browsers (where would the |newelement| selector match, then?) or a 
content-type mix depending on the browser? The latter seems to be the 
only thing that makes sense to me, but would also be a deal breaker, as 
many authors can't control the content type header.
Received on Monday, 17 September 2007 08:33:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:49 UTC