On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:22:37 +0100, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: > 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. It's both actually, for some value of XHTML1/HTML4 browsers. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 00:37:28 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:31:59 GMT