In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:57:40 -0800 (PST)
<ae972c38-b72a-4ba8-a1c8-a5df2f31b021@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> The HTML standards process grinds on
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | What seems clear in going over the contents is that,
> | assuming it?s ever implemented, HTML5 will be as different
> | from current Web standards as IPv6 is from IPv4.
> |
> | There is a warning in the preceding. IPv6 is still not
> | fully implemented nearly a decade after being approved.
> | Let?s hope that doesn?t happen here.
Why not? HTML4.01 is happily parsed by IE8 [!]. :-) There's
no reason, apart from more flexibility, RDF [*], additional
capabilities, easier-to-parse tags, etc. etc. to adopt
XHTML/HTML5, now, is there?
> `----
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=3234
>
> Microsoft stifles adoption of IPv6.
>
Can't be too careful. OSS might benefit from the
adoption of 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456
addresses [+] (give or take a few billion), after all.
[rest snipped]
[!] and that's about the only thing it happily parses. ;-)
[*] if it's still in use.
http://www.w3.org/RDF/
[+] 2^128. This doesn't include such issues as ::1,
the ipv6 equivalent of 127.0.0.1 . I'd frankly have
to look at the details to see what addresses in ipv6
are unroutable.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123:
std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i);
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
|
