- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 12:44:49 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, [iso-8859-1] C Williams wrote: > > you'll notice that I was referring to Web Forms 2.0 over-ruling of the > W3C's assertion that XHTML documents MUST have a doctype. > > [...] > > If it isn't html or xhtml, it can hardly pretend to advertise > itself as such, can it? As you point out, a WF2 document is not XHTML. Therefore the assertion in WF2 can't be overrulling anything in XHTML, since XHTML can't be applying any more, since the document isn't XHTML. The assertion is a new assertion, for WF2 documents. So this seems fine to me... > Imagine *another* browser vendor wanting to implement your spec. If a browser vendor wants to implement the WHATWG spec(s), I encourage them to either post to this list, or, if their work is confidential, e-mail me directly (anonymously if required), and the WHATWG members will make sure their requirements and time-constraints are taken into account as far as possible. Implementors are actually the main reason that there are three specs and not one. Implementors want to start coding the stable stuff (in order to get experimental implementations and implementation experience to aid the subsequent standardisation process) before the other stuff has been finished. Having different specs go through different stages of development is the best way to do this, as far as I can tell. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2004 05:44:49 UTC