- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:48:16 +0100
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:25:20 +0100, Dean Edwards <dean at edwards.name> wrote: > >Ian Hickson wrote: >> >>True. We could use a PI instead, but I don't think IE supports that (you >>wouldn't be able to tell there was a PI in the DOM, right?). >> >i just checked. they show up as comments! but they are readable. so if >you are concerned with IE compatibility we could use a PI. Yes, they're available in the DOM, as one of the key elements AIUI of this specification is an ability to degrade gracefully in legacy UA's, I'm concerned that we have an editor who isn't aware of the basic features of the most significant legacy UA. Also of course IE is not the only Legacy, there's Safari, Mozilla, Opera etc. all of which also need to be supported. Quite apart from all the embedded devices and Access Technologies. >i can see that one form is much nicer to read than the other. We cannot rely on scripting to achieve these features, I'm sure we'll all committed to an accessible specification, and given the huge security flaws regularly exposed in almost all UA's (certainly all desktop ones) There MUST be no reliance on scripting. > i >think if something like this does go in the markup then maybe it should >be a PI. i'm just not convinced either way. what do others feel? Definately agree with this, but it won't degrade in all legacy UA's Jim.
Received on Sunday, 13 June 2004 14:48:16 UTC