- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:14:47 +0100
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:09:39 +0930, Chris Were <chris.were at gmail.com> wrote: >>what you don't explain though is why that >> model requires no degradation - what's the difference? > > Are you refering to future or past degradation? The model I mentioned > doesn't require past degradation, but the future WHATWG specification > definately requires degradation to continue supporting what is > currently possible. could you explain more what you mean by future and past degradation? This hasn't really made anything clear I'm afraid, but I think you're probably right that we're talking at crossed purposes.. Jim
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 00:14:47 UTC