W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 2001

Re: Indicating browser support for XHTML1.0

From: Thomas Hurst <tom.hurst@clara.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:05:06 +0000
To: www-html <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20011121200506.A54589@sploo.aagh.net>
* Christian Wolfgang Hujer (Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com) wrote:

> Hello Chris, dear other list members.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > I can decide at run-time - on a  session-by-session basis - whether to
> > generate XHTML1.0-conformant code (tested using the W3C validation
> > service), or to drop back to HTML4.01 for the 'legacy' browsers.
>
> I think you needn't.

With the large amount of browser spoofing going about, even if you were
to serve different content based on what the browser calls itself, it's
likely to backfire.

> This is my personal experience. I do not guarantee for anything ;)
>
> I have tested this since Mozilla around Amaya, M16, Opera 5.12, Opera

Opera 6 is currently being rolled out - in addition to the new SDI
mode, I've also noticed slightly more complete CSS2 support.  The nasty
transparency on w3.org/Style/ now works, for instance.

> 3.60, Opera 4.0, Netscape 6.1, IE 5.0, IE 5.5, IE 6.0, some versions
> of Konqueror, w3m and lynx and from time to time with some Amiga
> browsers like AWeb, iBrowse, Voyager.
>
> I have not tested this on Mosaic, Arena, Chimera, Arachne, Voyager
> (QNX), Voyager (MorphOS), EmacsW3.

Don't forget links, a nice w3m-alike :)

> > Has there been any consideration given to indicating agent
> > capability at the major/minor version level?
>
> This is not a task of the W3C, it is a task of the browser
> manufacturers.

Now, we all know what happens when browser manufacturers define their
own standards.  An RFC to extend HTTP may be appropriate, though.

But, with standards like CSS and XHTML becoming modular, just knowing
what version is supported may not be enough when the client may only
impliment a small subset of the standard.  With this in mind, it's
probably best to direct efforts to make compatable documents rather than
try to serve different types of document to every client.

> Opera and Mozilla.org clearly state what they support and what they do
> not support. For Internet Explorer, I was unable to find such official
> information anywhere on *.microsoft.com. But I know Internet Explorer
> (even version 6) lacks of full HTML 4 and XHTML support. <abbr/>,
> <acronym/>, <q/> elements and several attributes do not work.

IE6 supports <acronym> (hover the mouse over an element.. not very good,
but it's there :), but for some reason doesn't support <abbr>.

Odd concidering they had SmartTags which were perfect for this sort
of presentation, and would in fact provide the author with even more
capabilities along the same lines, if they'd implimented them properly.

-- 
Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst  -  freaky@aagh.net  -  http://www.aagh.net/
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 15:05:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:49 GMT