Subject: Re: bug 629
From: Paul Rohr (paul@abisource.com)
Date: Tue Jan 25 2000 - 23:40:19 CST
In a private email, Leonard pointed out that with the proper whitespace we
could make ourselves more XHTML-friendly for unclosed tags. Here's the
relevant portion of the spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines
Note especially section C.2, which according to Leonard should be OK for the
following browsers:
At 07:46 PM 1/25/00 -0500, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
>>Does anyone know which browsers would barf on the XML-friendly option #4?
>
> None, at least as of the 3.x level browsers from Netscape and
>Microsoft, and it works fine in Mosaic, Opera and iCab. I don't know how
>Lynx will handle it.
That's pretty good. Once someone whips up a test case to make sure that
Lynx and, say, WebTV both handle this OK as well, then we're probably pretty
close.
Exporting old-style HTML, now, makes us 100% compatible with all existing
web clients. Patches to implement *all* the various new-style XHTML stuff
in compatible ways (as outlined in the spec) don't belong in our **HTML**
exporter until someone's done the legwork to confirm that the result will
really be compatible "enough".
As Eric points out, the bar for what goes into importers and exporters for
XHTML is an entirely different story. (I don't know who'd use the feature,
but it'd be a cool demo.)
We're doing a great job on buzzword compatibility elsewhere in the product.
Anyone who really really wants to track bleeding edge specs should focus
first on implementing features like:
vector graphics (SVG) or
equation editor (MATHML)
Unlike our HTML/XHTML convenience hack, both of those are *definitely*
must-have features in high-end word processors. :-)
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Jan 25 2000 - 23:34:59 CST