W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2004

[whatwg] Re: Transition from Legacy to Native rendering

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 02:59:24 +0100
Message-ID: <851c8d3104062518593474df24@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 01:28:12 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> > Oh right, great what tech do you use?
> 
> The |navigation| object, e.g.

the navigation object is identical between IE and IceBrowser, you
cannot differentiate them.

> > even the conditional comment method is flawless but that's getting
> > pretty obscure.
> 
> That's another way.

Oops, it looks like I left out a NOT from the sentance, it's not
flawless, it still turns up both false positives, and false negatives.

> > In any case detecting IE is not enough, we need to detect an IE that
> > doesn't support WF2 (remember I can implement WF2 on top of IE easily
> > enough, I'm even considering it if the spec evolves into something I'm
> > happy with.)
> 
> As a binary plugin, you mean?

in any number of ways, both binary and script based.

> This may come as a surprise, but standards compliance is not a matter of
> guessing the spec author's intent and implementing that, it's about
> implementing the letter of the spec.

Where does the spec say 1.6.1 only applies to attributes defined in
HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0?      I also don't really see why the fact it
violates the spec here is a bad thing, but adding innerHTML violations
are okay - what decides if it's a "good" violation or not?  For me
this seems a very good one, and fully in the spirit of compatibility
(new attributes are treated exactly the same as existing ones.)

Jim.
Received on Friday, 25 June 2004 18:59:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:34 UTC