- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:22:12 +0100
- To: "Nick Kew" <nick@webthing.com>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Al:- > > Of course, HTML WG are saying that XHTML 2.0 doesn't > > have to be legacy-safe, [...] Nick:- > Or on second thoughts: yes, here's one printable comment. It > would be entirely wrong for them to introduce constructs that > break back-compatibility gratuitously. Jim:- > I think in WAI terms, we do have to be legacy safe unless > there's some incredibly powerful reason, anything that breaks > current access technology is dangerous. I'm afraid you're just repeating concerns that have already been expressed. I ranted about exactly this topic on www-html (which is the proper venue for this discussion) back in August. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2001Aug/0057 - My original note http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2001Aug/0085 - Reply from the WG chair http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2001Aug/0088 - Reply from Bjoern, exposing a badly written detail in my original note http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2001Aug/0089 - My reply to the chair, clarifying my position http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2001Aug/0090 - My reply to Bjoern, clarifying my position the thread continued through August:- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2001Aug/ Result: XHTML 2.0 will be backwards incompatable with good cause, the HTML WG hopefully won't twist it to meet UA implementation of base-level XML functionality. -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Saturday, 20 October 2001 16:24:52 UTC