Le 06-02-06 à 19:26, Anne van Kesteren a écrit : > Disclaimer: Just nitpicking. Feel free to ignore. no Anne, There are good comments. >> There is something, I'm doubtful though. These following class names >> text, content, main, body article >> are not used most of the time for an "article" in WepApps 1.0 or >> a "section" in XHTML 2.0 > > HTML5 has <section> too. As in, <article> and <section> are not > identical. so that should be fixed in the report as well if I understand the report. > Yeah, people should learn to style the <body> and <html> elements... definitely. *sigh* > > <small> is no longer presentational in HTML5. In fact, there is no > presentational element in HTML5. hmmm… wonder what is the debate behind the semantics. Interesting. > The problem with XHTML 2.0 is that it ads very little value over > XHTML 1.0 and > is not backwards compatible with it _at all_. (New namespace.) And > therefore > also not compatible with HTML which will be the most widely used > language. or more freedom by creating any semantics you want. depending on the way you look at it. -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/ *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***Received on Monday, 6 February 2006 15:13:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:27 GMT