- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:16:02 +0100
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:39:40 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > > > > > > The difference of course is that WF2 is implementable in IE, whereas > > > XHTML fundamentally isn't. > > > > Of course XHTML is, IE6 is the best XHTML browser IMO, it renders it far > > better than the others, it's incremental, it's fast, the only problem is > > you have to jump through hoops to make it even do it (although I've got > > a feeling it's not even possible in the current releases.) > > Wow. > > I have printed this and framed it. based on what? > Just to clarify, I was referring to non-Microsoft authors implementing > XHTML in IE6, not in Microsoft implementing it in hypothetical future > versions of IE. Nowhere did I mentiong hypothetical future IE's, but you seem somewhat confused about your point - it's okay not to degrade in FireFox, Opera and Safari as they can be improved by their vendors, but it has to degrade in IE6 because that has to be done by non-microsoft authors? Jim.
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 07:16:02 UTC