Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > It is backwards compatible because valid XHTML1 will always also be > valid HTML5. Also, browsers that currently support XHTML1 won't choke > on missing @alt. Backwards compatibility (and the "two serialisations" > thing) doesn't mean that HTML5 can simply be converted down to XHTML1 > (in which case making a mandatory attribute optional *would* be a > breach). > > I'm not defending the decision to make @alt optional, mind...just > working out the logic that lets HTML WG do it while still following > the backwards-compatibility principle. > Gotcha - thanks Patrick. Still feels regressive to me...Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 18:33:54 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:31:59 GMT