-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, On Sunday 29 June 2003 21:28, Christoph P�er wrote: > Jason M. Kikta <kiktajm@muohio.edu>: > > The most important thing is to break backwards- > > compatibility with <object>. This is a smart move, > I don't think so. To break backwards compatibility if required, is okay for > XHTML2, but to break it just to break it, is just dumb. True. > > IE is so horribly broken in this respect, > > IE, at least the Windows version, doesn't even try to support XHTML yet, > let alone XHTML2. So why change anything of the spec based on pure > assumptions of future bugs in future browser versions? I absolutely agree. Furthermore imho it definitely is not the task of a specification to deal with or take care of bugs and flaws of implementations, even if it is such a widespread and well known one. Why shall all implementors be forced to follow a move of a change in a spec in respect of only a single faulty implementation? Bye - -- ITCQIS GmbH Christian Wolfgang Hujer Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter (Shareholding CEO) Telefon: +49 (0)89 27 37 04 37 Telefax: +49 (0)89 27 37 04 39 E-Mail: Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com WWW: http://www.itcqis.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/ALNBzu6h7O/MKZkRAoUxAKDH33/udeiVMwfMzRBXWTEExj3P7QCg2LoS ugs6bY1PN/7fJTTLDt0qb50= =tni3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 19:14:39 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:49:32 GMT