On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 02:05 -0400, Justin James wrote: > The overall sentiment that I hear is that people want that style of > HTML to not be merely "defined" an "obsolete" or "non-conforming", but > to be considered "valid HTML". If it's currently valid HTML 3.2 or valid HTML 4.01, then it will continue to be valid HTML 3.2 or valid HTML 4.01. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>Received on Monday, 26 October 2009 06:23:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:50 GMT