W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 1999

RE: XHTML

From: Alex Blewitt <ukasb001@cerberus.ioshq.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 05:27:08 -0400 (EDT)
To: Todd Fahrner <fahrner@pobox.com>
cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>, www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9908040924420.12490-100000@cerberus.ioshq.com>
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Todd Fahrner wrote:

> At 9:47 AM -0700 8/3/99, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >Except that this would be a significant and incompatible change from HTML
> >4.0.
> >
> >-Chris Wilson
> 
> FWIW, all released versions of Internet Explorer for MacOS fail with 
> HTML's checked="checked" syntax. It has been reported to me, however, 
> that they succeed with a boolean checked="true|false" syntax. Would 
> make an interesting backwards compatibility case for changing to a 
> boolean in XHTML if other deployed UAs also recover gracefully from 
> this syntax.

The boolean yes/no could easily be true/false - it just seemed to be more
sensible to have a standard /true/false/yes/no/ option rather than
'checked=checked' 'disabled=disabled' 'selected=selected'.

I have also heard that selected="true" works on most systems - does it not
make sense to define some %Boolean; 'type' for a true/false value
therefore?

> ><!ENTITY % Boolean "(true|false)" "false"> [mod]

Alex.

/***************************************************************\
|*       Alex Blewitt       * Hug, and the world hugs with you *|
|*  Alex.Blewitt@ioshq.com  *                                  *|
|*  Mobile: +44 966 158647  *    Spread a little happiness     *|
\***************************************************************/
Received on Wednesday, 4 August 1999 05:30:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:39 GMT