W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2007

Re: The point of XHTML 2

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:33:26 -0500
Message-Id: <681AE8F2-C91C-4840-A917-A9CAC7E7BA81@robburns.com>
Cc: "Maurice Carey" <maurice@thymeonline.com>, "HTML Working Group" <public-html@w3.org>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>

Hi Chaals,

On Jun 25, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> No. There are people who implement XHTML 2 stuff already. It is  
> just that there is almost none of it on the open web, and there are  
> difficulties in implementing the two side by side, so there is not  
> much obvious motivation for a major browser vendor to implement  
> XHTML 2. (In practice one of the goals of XHTML 2 is to use more  
> generic XML technology. For example many of the important features  
> of XHTML 2 already work in Opera, although not all of it - most  
> notably we do not implement Xforms so you need to use an extension  
> if you rely on it).

I was wondering if you could say more about this: especially in light  
of some of the discussion of backwards compatibility for both XHTML2  
and HTML5. Are there particular issues one confronts in serving  
XHTML2 to Opera? What about if the XHTML2 contains no XForms portions  
of XHTML2? Is there an XForms extension for Opera (I'm aware of one  
for Firefox)? Mostly curious. However, this seems relevant to trying  
to understand and explain issues of backwards compatibility that  
relate to HTML5 in contrast to XHTML2.

Take care,
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 05:33:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:22 UTC