W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Change Proposals for ISSUE-41 (D.E.) vs XHTML and IE9

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:31:57 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0271003181331h14eb2f97j65e49fbefab5659a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:

> Hi,
> for those who didn't notice because of all the other newsworthy stuff about
> IE9: there will finally be proper XHTML support.
> For ISSUE-41 this means that we *do* have a well-defined mechanism that
> works in current versions of Chrome/Firefox/Opera/Safari, and will work in
> the next version of IE.
> Therefore it appears it would be good not come up with something
> *completely* different just for text/html.
> Just sayin'.
> Best regards, Julian
Before I lost my internet connectivity for two days, I was going to drop a
note about this in the email list. Thank you so much for stating this

I agree: Microsoft's support for XHTML is, to me, a game changer. As happy
as I was about support for SVG, I was more happy about support for XHTML.

I, also, would rather not have a conflicting extensibility mechanism for
HTML. I'd rather not have anything for HTML, if it can't be compatible with
XHTML's extensibility.

The whole point of distributed extensibility wasn't so that Firefox, Google,
Opera, Microsoft, and Apple could do their own extensions in the spec ala
CSS. It was supposed to be a mechanism that was accessible to everyone, and
that could be used safely in the future, not just for hacking today.

Received on Thursday, 18 March 2010 20:32:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:13 UTC