Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful

Toby A Inkster wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 10:28:11PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
> | However, wouldn't it be a wise requirement for each new version of 
> | (X)HTML to have at least one compliant implementation _prior_ to the 
> | release?
> 
> How could this be done though? How could a browser maker implement a 
> standard that has not yet been published?

I believe Petr meant prior to moving from Proposed Recommendation to 
Recommendation. (Or from Candidate Recommendation to Recommendation -- I 
always forget which one comes first, and I'm too lazy to check.)

> Besides, as Opera and Mozilla have fairly decent XML+CSS engines, and 
> XHTML is and XML application, you could consider Opera and Mozilla to 
> already support XHTML to a degree.

I consider Opera and Mozilla's XHTML support better than "to a degree".

/Jonas