RE: A suggestion from the public from Toby Inkster on 2009-10-26 (public-html@w3.org from October 2009)

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:22:50 +0000
To: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Cc: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <1256538170.7123.328.camel@ophelia2.g5n.co.uk>

On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 02:05 -0400, Justin James wrote:
> The overall sentiment that I hear is that people want that style of
> HTML to not be merely "defined" an "obsolete" or "non-conforming", but
> to be considered "valid HTML".

If it's currently valid HTML 3.2 or valid HTML 4.01, then it will
continue to be valid HTML 3.2 or valid HTML 4.01.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>

Received on Monday, 26 October 2009 06:23:31 UTC