- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 02:59:24 +0100
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