RE: [Structure Module] Renaming the <html> element to more semantic name

Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
> Isn't XHTML 2.0 supposed to be breaking most of this history and not
> be backward-compatible anyway? Why does the 15 years of history with
> <html> apply to XHTML 2.0 if none of the other (excuse my language)
> rubbish from older HTML specifications doesn't?

Actually Asbjørn, I thought the very same thing too, but my current
debate with the XHTML Editors regarding the @key attribute seems to
indicate that what they say and what they do doesn't always correspond -
they are quite happy to keep "rubbish" for un-substantiated "historical"
reasons, even when provided with multiple reasons for not dong so:
http://www.wats.ca/articles/access+keystill=accesskey/80

JF
--
John Foliot  foliot@wats.ca
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   
Phone: 1-613-482-7053  

Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2005 13:04:16 UTC