Re: <separator /> should be <transition />

Laurens Holst wrote:
> 
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
>> If visual browsers were the only concern, true. But just because you 
>> can style elements from an "unknown" namespace doesn't make elements 
>> backwards compatible. That's a myth.
> 
> 
> Well, there’s aural stylesheets too... And what’s ‘backwards 
> compatibility’, really... To me, if it works for most cases, that’s 
> backwards compatible enough, even though it is not strictly spoken 
> backwards compatible from a semantic point of view. But in that case you 
> can just tell people to upgrade their UA :), because backwards 
> compatibility isn’t a formal goal of XHTML 2.0.

Seriously, did you miss:

# This would only help though if XHTML 2.0 becomes more backwards
# compatible.

... in one of my previous e-mails? That was an important paragraph and I 
believe that is the one you're responding to now, albeit not directly.


-- 
  Anne van Kesteren
  <http://annevankesteren.nl/>