W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2006

Re: how is this Strict valid?

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 15:14:07 +0000
Message-ID: <458BF63F.1020603@splintered.co.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org

Tina Holmboe wrote:

>   "Note that in XHTML 1.0, the name attribute of these elements is
>    formally deprecated, and will be removed in a subsequent version
>    of XHTML." - quote the XHTML 1.0 spec.
> 
>   I wouldn't call it "perfectly ok".

Then we'll agree to disagree here. If there's a valid reason for using 
it, even if it's deprecated but still present, I'd call that perfectly 
ok (as long as the developer is aware of it).

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke
__________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__________________________________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 22 December 2006 15:14:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:08 GMT