- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 16:54:49 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
- To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- cc: "William F. Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu>, <mozilla-mathml@mozilla.org>, <www-talk@w3.org>
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote: > > Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > >>>> it would render the page without any expanded >>>> character entity references, since Mozilla is not a validating parser >>>> and thus skips parsing the DTD and thus doesn't know what , >>>> · and © are. >>> Mozilla's XML parser should be smart enough to recognize the HTML DTDs and >>> thus expand these entities properly, even if it doesn't validate the page >>> (which I believe it should). >> (If it did, you couldn't arbitrarily use namespaces.) > > I don't know if this is possible with Mozilla's current technology, but > ideally it would validate the XHTML only within the HTML namespace (and the > attribute space). Forget Mozilla's current technology -- that's not even possible within the W3C's technology. XSchemas are supposed to be the way to do that. >>>> and it would use an >>>> unexpected background colour for the page because the stylesheet sets >>>> the background on <body> and not <html>, which in XHTML will result in >>>> a different rendering to the equivalent in HTML4 (same sheet, line 5). >>> I have not heard of this change before. Can you point me to the section of >>> the XHTML spec that defines this? >> The HTML WG have asked the CSS WG to not extend CSS2 section 14.2 [1] >> paragraph 4 to cover XHTML. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/colors.html#q2 > > This seems very strange -- can you elaborate on the reasoning for this or is > it Member-Confidential? I'll defer to Steven Pemberton and Chris Lilley the chairs of the HTML and CSS working groups respectively for the exact reasoning -- as far as I know, though, it's just that the HTML WG wish to remove any "special casing" of HTML in other specs. Rightly so, IMHO. The body->html backwards background propagation rule is extremely hard to get right (as far as I know, no browsers do it right). -- Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL Invited Expert, CSS Working Group /. `- ' ( `--' The views expressed in this message are strictly `- , ) - > ) \ personal and not those of Netscape or Mozilla. ________ (.' \) (.' -' ______
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2001 19:52:31 UTC