- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:44:16 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > > > > > > If not, and it's fine for "conformant UA's" to include that, then it's > > > just as fine for everyone else to include other logical extensions. > > > > I am baffled why, if you think it's fine for everyone to include logical > > extensions, why you are "disgusted with Opera, Apples and Mozilla > > involvement in this deliberate subversion of internet standards". > > I'd be happy with them including extensions, but this isn't what they're > doing, they're trying to modify the actual specifications. If they > simply said "we support this" then that would be fine, but they're > trying to make out it is a standard and actually part of XHTML etc. is > the problem I have. Uh. Where did we day this was part of XHTML??? Everything I've written says this is an extension. An extension to HTML4, an extension to the XHTML namespace, an extension to DOM, an extension to HTTP, etc. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 27 June 2004 07:44:16 UTC