- 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