- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 01:33:18 +0000 (UTC)
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, David Hyatt wrote: > > This is actually not quite true. There are a number of features that > don't "just work" when you make a switchover to XML, and in fact the > set is so non-trivial that I don't think you should gloss over this so > readily. Granted, for some of the less well-thought-through features of HTML4, the assumptions made in the initial implementations have caused problems for the XHTML implementations. Typically these differences are either in the parser (e.g. <noscript> being implemented by dropping the nodes from the DOM insteaad of hiding them conditionally; note that doing this in the legacy dropping-from-the-DOM way is actually non-compliant anyway), or in the DOM (e.g. serialisation). The features in WHATWG are defined in such a way that they should not have any problems of this kind, so my argument (that implementing them in both technologies is easier than in just one) is still valid, I think. > In general both Mozilla and Safari's application/xml+xhtml support lags > substantially behind their text/html support. Neither browser can even > render XHTML incrementally for example (last time I checked at least). Again, that's a parser (or parser glue) problem. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 25 June 2004 18:33:18 UTC