- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:15:38 -0400
Jim Ley wrote:
>>>No, because WF2 is only relevant to legacy clients, and legacy clients
>>>mostly only support text/html.
>>
>> I think you're forgetting the WF2 clients that support XHTML.
>
> No, but even the authors and WHAT WG members don't recommend using it,
> and those user agents also support HTML 4.01, so there's no reason to
> being serving XHTML WF to them. The HTML WF will work just the same.
I recall no such statements being made by WHAT WG members on this
mailing list, and nothing in the Web Forms 2.0 draft to support such a
conclusion. In fact, there are probably hundreds of instances of the
term "XHTML" in the WF2 draft.
>>I believe Mozilla, Opera and Safari all support XHTML, so why would
>>employees of these companies define a standard that requires them to
>>treat HTML and XHTML differently?
>
> Because they already have to be and are being treated differently.
This is in direct contradiction with Ian Hickson's statements on the
same issue.
Received on Friday, 9 July 2004 08:15:38 UTC