- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:09:07 -0700
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: public-cdf@w3.org
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:05:55 -0700, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote: >> FYI, it's not HTML backwards compatible given that HTML requires an end >> tag. This would only be "backwards compatible" if the element was in >> fact >> an HTML empty element. That should be somewhere in Appendix C of XHTML >> 1.0. Not that it matters, of course as WICD is not aimed at being HTML >> compatible as I understand it. > > Right, I just meant backwards-compatible with existing HTML user agents. Fair enough, but it isn't :-) Existing HTML UAs (as Appendix C might or might not indicate) treat it as an unclosed open tag. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 14 August 2006 15:09:35 UTC