- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:32:40 +0100
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:11:06 -0400, Matthew Raymond <mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote: > Sounds like you have the makings of a good thread on how WF2 needs > to be corrected to degrade gracefully on XHTML Basic user agents. Not really, since the spec proposes nothing about XHTML Basic, so anything I'd say would be off-topic. > > Not that I actually think it's relevant, but many of the individuals > > in the WHAT WG were involved with browsers at the time. (which is good > > of course, getting their expertise involved) > > I fail to see your point from a suspicion angle. Did you miss the "not that I think it's relevant" part, where I thought I made it pretty clear that I didn't think it was relevant. I was simply rebutting your suggestion that because Safari/Mozilla didn't exist the history of browser development wasn't relevant. > Now look at this URL: > > http://www.hixie.ch/specs/xbl/XBL2.html > > It does NOT have a Member-only designation. It uses the member only stylesheet, it's a member only document, if that's really the defence for ignoring W3 process, it's a pretty poor one. > Yes, I can simply leave your paranoid ravings unanswered in a public > forum. Sure, there's nothing wrong with doing so, Others are free to judge from what's written. Jim.
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 06:32:40 UTC