- From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:53:59 -0400
- To: HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
- Cc: masinter@adobe.com
Larry Masinter wrote: > I don't understand your "nothing" > In addition, [XHTML1] > defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML > 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html. > XHTML 1.1 doesn't define a profile of use of XHTML which is > compatible with HTML 4.01, so the reference to XHTML 1.0 > doesn't apply to XHTML 1.1. Assuming this is true, it argues heavily in favor of updating the RFC; I know there are some controversies over XHTML 1.0 vs 1.1, but ... I still find it surprising that a newer version is NOT acceptable, when an older one is. Surprising enough that I would like it called out explicitly, perhaps like In addition, [XHTML1] (but not XHTML1.1) defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html. -jJ -jJ
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 03:54:59 UTC