- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:47:50 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:58:08 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: >> CSS extensions won't be done via WHATWG >> (although I'm sure we'll be proposing plenty of extensions originally >> conceived of in this list, in the W3C CSS working group). > > So, as has been proposed, things like specific CSS properties for > styling date pickers, will be raised in the W3C CSS WG ? I don't know the details of what will be proposed yet, obviously. >> Also, Web Forms 2 doesn't change HTML, it merely extends it > > So there'll be no changes to the SGML declaration, and we'll still get > to use SHORTTAG and stuff? I have no intention of going near the SGML declaration. Maybe fantasai has more specific thoughts on the matter, though. Fantasai? > However, your argument about changing XHTML also falls down, in that > it's XHTML which requires complete failure and no rendering in response > to XML WF's errors - since SVG recovers much more gracefully from XML WF > errors. You have this backwards. I refer you to XHTML 1.0 section 3.2, and SVG 1.1 section F.2. > So you wouldn't be changing XML, just XHTML, something you're already > doing. This is also incorrect, I refer you to XML 1.1 section 5.1. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2004 08:47:50 UTC