- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:30:25 +1100
- To: "John Colby" <John.Colby@uce.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Brian Kelly" <B.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk>, "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, <www-html@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
It doesn't really make a difference. IE is barely capable of treating XHTML 1 properly - you need to do all sorts of nasty compatibility stuff (it's legal XML but it isn't particularly nice) to get around its non-standard ways of handling Web content. XHTML 2 is not backwards-compatible with old browsers anyway, so IE will presumably treat it as it does "real" XML (i.e. non-HTML), in which case there is no particular value in the parts of the HTML spec that they did implement. Cheers Chaals Le Friday, 12 Dec 2003, à 21:21 Australia/Melbourne, John Colby a écrit : > Despite all the semantics it really does make a difference to this > argument that IE does not recognise and treat correctly <abbr> but does > recognise and treat correctly <acronym>. The mouseover will display a > tooltip. It also makes a difference that <acronym> has been dropped > from > the proposals for XHTML 2.0. Other browsers treat each correctly. > -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundación Sidar charles@sidar.org http://www.sidar.org
Received on Friday, 12 December 2003 05:32:59 UTC