- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:26:19 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
There is a difference between "backwards compatibility is not a requirement" and "backwards compatibility is not an issue". As I understand it the HTML group are not planning to break any backwards compatibility without a good reason to do so. Chaals On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Jim Ley wrote: Al Gilman: > Of course, HTML WG are saying that XHTML 2.0 doesn't have to be > legacy-safe, but I am still concerned to come up with usages that are. 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. Jim. -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Sunday, 21 October 2001 11:26:19 UTC