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? ~fantasaiReceived on Friday, 3 August 2007 21:29:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:12 UTC