W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: Abbreviations and Acronyms: [techs] Latest HTML Techniques Draft

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:30:25 +1100
Cc: "Brian Kelly" <B.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk>, "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, <www-html@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
To: "John Colby" <John.Colby@uce.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <32863E11-2C8E-11D8-9344-000A958826AA@sidar.org>

It doesn't really make a difference. IE is barely capable of treating 
XHTML 1 properly - you need to do all sorts of nasty compatibility 
stuff (it's legal XML but it isn't particularly nice) to get around its 
non-standard ways of handling Web content. XHTML 2 is not 
backwards-compatible with old browsers anyway, so IE will presumably 
treat it as it does "real" XML (i.e. non-HTML), in which case there is 
no particular value in the parts of the HTML spec that they did 



Le Friday, 12 Dec 2003, à 21:21 Australia/Melbourne, John Colby a écrit 

> Despite all the semantics it really does make a difference to this
> argument that IE does not recognise and treat correctly <abbr> but does
> recognise and treat correctly <acronym>. The mouseover will display a
> tooltip. It also makes a difference that <acronym> has been dropped 
> from
> the proposals for XHTML 2.0. Other browsers treat each correctly.
Charles McCathieNevile                          Fundación Sidar
charles@sidar.org                                http://www.sidar.org
Received on Friday, 12 December 2003 05:32:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:26 UTC