- From: Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:51:45 -0800
- To: Jelks Cabaniss <jelks@jelks.nu>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
Jelks Cabaniss wrote: > > Murray Altheim wrote: [...] > > XHTML 1.1 is a markup language built out of a set of those modules, > > but does not include legacy features. No frames, no <font>, no style > > attribute. > > Inline and embedded styling have problems, but to put them in the legacy bucket > with FONT and frames -- at least at this point in time -- is, IMO, a stretch. > Especially since "XML Packaging" doesn't even show up as a blip on the radar > screen. Until that exists (*if* it ever exists), documents should be able to > be shipped with rendering suggestions *in the instance*. You're not reading what I wrote, nor what is clearly in the specs: we have not removed the ability to include style information in the instance, since the <style> element is still available in XHTML. We have not even threatened its family or anything, no horse heads next to the pillow. [...] > Two questions: > > 1) Was there consensus in the HTML WG on this? Yes, and it has been recorded as such. > 2) Has the issue been "escalated"? The word 'escalate' does not occur in the W3C process document, so I don't know what that exactly means. But it seems to have been pointed out recently that it's not up to the HTML WG to 'escalate' anything, nor would that make any sense (ie., disagreeing with our own consensus?). Murray ........................................................................... Murray Altheim <mailto:altheim@eng.sun.com> XML Technology Center Sun Microsystems, Inc., MS MPK17-102, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025 the honey bee is sad and cross and wicked as a weasel and when she perches on you boss she leaves a little measle -- archy
Received on Monday, 21 February 2000 02:29:35 UTC