Re: Formal Objection to Questions 1 and 2; Abstention on Question 3

On Sun, 06 May 2007 11:27:33 +0200, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:
> Hmm.. come to think of it. It's quite a pity that that is what the  
> charter says. Would have been better to say that the language should  
> have been based on the markup that is currently used on the internet.  
> Too bad we didn't think of that earlier.

FWIW, the deliverables section our charter does mention:

   "A serialized form of such a language using a defined,
   non-XML syntax compatible with the 'classic HTML'
   parsers of existing Web browsers."

which sort of addresses that point I think. (Which actually also addresses  
all the debate about draconian versus non-draconian handling come to think  
of it...)

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 09:56:01 UTC