- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:22:37 +0000
- To: HTML4All <list@html4all.org>
- CC: wai-xtech@w3.org
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > It is backwards compatible because valid XHTML1 will always also be > valid HTML5. Probably worth adding: only in the case of IMG/@alt, all other things being equal (which of course they aren't). And possibly: unless I'm misunderstanding the idea of backwards-compatibility. Is it "HTML5 browsers will be able to make sense of XHTML1/HTML4 documents" (my understanding) or "XHTML1/HTML4 browsers will be able to work with HTML5 documents"? Even if it's the latter, the fact that browsers don't throw an error when an XHTML1 image is missing the mandatory @alt could be explained as backwards compatible by the WG. P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 00:22:54 UTC