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

Re: Vendor Support for XHTML2 [was Re: role cardinality [was: Re: ARIA Proposal ]]

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:56:31 -0500
Message-Id: <4BB74C81-3856-490F-88FF-321362810D90@robburns.com>
Cc: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
To: scott lewis <sfl@scotfl.ca>

HI Scott,

On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:32 PM, scott lewis wrote:

> On 2 Oct 2007, at 2048, Robert Burns wrote:
>> Hi Scott,
>> I  think you misunderstand the meaning of those documents. Those  
>> apply only to the work of this WG and do not reflect anything  
>> about the future of the participants involved with this WG. All of  
>> us are free to develop technologies for any standard we wish.
> I didn't suggest anyone was bound by anything, nor did I suggest  
> that anyone's freedom was constrained. You had suggested that we  
> humble members of the HTML WG could not possibly know the intent of  
> the browser vendors regarding XHTML2 support. I pointed to public  
> statements of intent from three major vendors. That's all.

My point was that nothing in those documents tells us about the big  
picture regarding the intent of those major vendors with respect to  
XHTML2 or HTML5 (other than that they made intellectual property  
available to this WG as do we all). So I would still say that we  
members of the HTML WG  (humble or otherwise) could not possibly know  
the intent of the browser vendors regarding XHTML2 support".  
Certainly the citations you provided change nothing about that.

Take care,
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 03:56:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:08 GMT