- From: Stephanie Troeth <steph@unadorned.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 08:49:50 -0400
- To: "'public-evangelist@w3.org' w3. org" <public-evangelist@w3.org>
Hi Anne, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > It's more an issue with the article than with XHTML 2.0 not? I never > said I disagreed with XHTML 2.0 here. The consistency they have with > 'src' is better than breaking that just for 'object' which isn't really > compatible at all thanks to its different namespace. I believe this article talks more about the irrelevance of the object element and backwards-compatibility, there is no strict mention nor claim of forwards-compatibility apart from mentioning its inclusion in XHTML 2.0. Note that XHTML 2.0 is still in a working draft stage - and perhaps this is the best time to bring up such issues with the HTML working group as you appear to care about it strongly. regards, -steph
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2005 12:49:41 UTC