- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:31:38 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Simon Pieters wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:44:25 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Simon Pieters wrote: > > > > > > The spec is now gaining all the remaining stuff from DOM2 HTML, so > > > this note is incorrect: > > > > > > "Note: The interfaces defined in this specification are not always > > > supersets of the interfaces defined in DOM2 HTML; some features that > > > were formerly deprecated, poorly supported, rarely used or > > > considered unnecessary have been removed. Therefore it is not > > > guaranteed that an implementation that supports "HTML" "5.0" also > > > supports "HTML" "2.0"." > > > > > > I'm thinking that the spec should maybe just use "2.0" instead of > > > "5.0", since it's what browsers do and there might be pages that > > > check for this. > > > > > > Meanwhile it seems useful to return false as appropriate if the UA > > > only allows one of the syntaxes, as Smylers points out. > > > > I've removed everything but HTML/2.0. > > I'm pretty sure Web compat requires HTML/1.0 to return true, too. Good point, added that one too. > Gecko, WebKit and Opera return true for XHTML/2.0. WebKit and Opera also > return true for XHTML/1.0. I don't know what the Web compat situation is > with the XHTML values. I've added these, but would be very willing to drop any that end up only supported in at most one browser. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 17:31:38 UTC