- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:10:25 +1100
- To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Laurens Holst wrote: > Robert Brodrecht schreef: >> So, yes, XHTML 2 threw out backward compatibility. > > I think this is a common mistake, and given the charter of XHTML2 maybe > not a strange one. However, this does not reflect the reality where > XHTML2 contained elements like <h1>...<h6>, <a>, <img>, and also re-uses > the XHTML1 namespace. I'm yet to see a draft of XHTML 2.0 that reuses the XHTML 1.0 namespace. AFAIK, that intention was only mentioned once in an email on www-html-editor. Perhaps it is/was in some internal draft, but hopefully it will never make it into any published spec. > The existence of these elements and this namespace > can only be explained as being for backwards compatibility reasons, While it may appear from the tag names that the intention is for backwards compatibility, that is not true. These are just some of the incompatibilities introduced in XHTML 2.0, some of which would make it totally impossible to implement in the real world: * <script> renamed to <handler> * <input> has been replaced with the XForms version in the XHTML1 namespace, which is incompatible with the XHTML1 version. * <img> drops alt in favour of nested fallback content * <object src=""> instead of <object data=""> * href, src, etc. on every element is, according to browser vendors, extremely difficult or impossible to implement in the real world. * <label> used for labelling lists, not form controls * <hr/> renamed to <separator/> * <l></l> replaces <br/> * etc... -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 14:10:42 UTC