Re: Additional flags needed

Arron Eicholz wrote:
> fantasai wrote:
> 
>> So none of these require an XMLonly flag or an XHTMLonly flag. Were there others you had in
>> mind?
> 
> Yes there is one more. What about the examples just before section 17.3? Those are XML only
> examples and not valid HTML or XHTML. This is one of the times where you need the XMLonly flag.

You can test those by using div+class with the table display types.

> I think you have convinced me that there is no current need for the XHTMLonly flag since XHTML
> should work for XML as well.

Not sure what you mean here.

>>> Also we were wondering about ideas for a flag that identified that you
>>> have a supporting XHTML/HTML file. We currently use 'file' though I think it is too generic
>>> any suggestions here?
>> What do you mean by "a supporting XHTML/HTML file"?
> 
> In the case of a frameset case where you need to load another page in order for the test to work
> properly. This case is in section 17.6.1 where you need a frameset for the case. Currently we are
> using the flag 'file' but it's not standard yet and personally I think it's to generic.

I don't see why the use of support files would need to be flagged specially.
What do you need the flag for?

~fantasai