- From: Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 19:37:27 +0100
Anne van Kesteren (fora) wrote: > > The problem is that (1) browser don't support modularization and (2) Web > Forms 2.0 would probably need a namespace which is something the working > group doesn't want iirc. I don't see how lack of support for modularisation is an issue, the likes of Opera and Mozilla are quite happy to deal with XHTML 1.1 apart from their lack of support for Ruby Annotation[1]. Certainly I agree that it must remain in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace (when sent with the application/xhtml+xml content type, as opposed to text/html) in order to be backwards compatible. If Ruby Annotation can use the XHTML 1 namespace I don't see why Web Forms 2.0 can't. Regards, Dave [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-ruby-20010531/
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2004 11:37:27 UTC