- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:21:25 +0200
- To: public-html-comments@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote: > your UA bashing over here is pointless and really distracting When I need another UA to read the HTML5 draft this upsets me. The question what's a valid port, or a valid URL, and what not, is quite interesting. > in particular the position that Netscape 3.x could be in some > way better than FF I liked it, as you know. Without CSS and with disabled JS 1.1 it was not in the position to get anything about it wrong. It also had no trouble with huge files, it crashed. I doubt that it already supported IPv6 literals, but I never tested it. And I agree that we don't need to discuss bugs and missing features in this vintage 1998 monster wrt HTML5 2011, nobody is going to change it. Identifying domain literals, including hex. IPv4 formats, was recently discussed on various lists, and as far as I can tell it this is unambiguous from an STD 66 POV... > Can we please stick to the contents of the HTML5 spec? ...stick to STD 66, don't invent new URLs. Don't do whatever some browsers do if existing standards are better for the job at hand. Frank
Received on Saturday, 12 July 2008 15:21:40 UTC