W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2002

Re: Comments on XHTML 2.0 Working Draft

From: Jonas Jørgensen <jonasj@jonasj.dk>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 11:58:24 +0200
Message-ID: <3D50EF40.7050708@jonasj.dk>
To: www-html@w3.org

Jonny Axelsson wrote:
>>8.5. The br element
>>I agree with Jonas here. What's the purpose of having a deprecated
>>element in a document explicitly marked as backwards-incompatible?
> The goal for XHTML 2.0 is not to be backwards incompatible, but backwards 
> compatibility is is much less important than it was for XHTML 1.0, and 
> should not be used as an excuse not to remove/fix misfeatures just because 
> they have been there before. General backwards compatibility is still 
> necessary, otherwise XHTML 2.0 would not be XHTML, but some other language.

If backwards compatibility should not be used as an excuse to keep <br>, 
what *is* the excuse?

> Who is to say that more features will not be deprecated as the working draft 
> progresses? Good examples here could be hr or strong.

"8.20. The strong element
The strong element indicates strong emphasis for its contents."

Why should strong be deprecated?

Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 05:57:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:00 UTC