- From: C.Bottelier <c.bottelier@ITsec.nl>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 10:11:48 +0200
- To: Micho <MichoKest@terra.es>
- CC: www-html@w3.org, www-style@w3.org, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
rote: > More functionality can never affect backwardly the XHTML 2.0 standard, Agreed > and the pre-load proposal is both easy to implement and to code, Agreed > so why not do it? It is not a required argument, and if used it's very > simple and clear. This would not be a valid motivation to add it. > Bad design? If somebody doesn't like this functionality, don't use it, > but make it a part of the new standard because preloading _is_ important. The question was if the pre-load attribute was only needed to hide the effects of bad page design, or as a valid addition to the functionallity of XHTML, without making XHTML heavyweigth as docbook is. > As for Flash, I also dislike it's poor compatibility, but that is quite > off-topic, I only posted it for the example. Agreed Christian Bottelier
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 04:12:03 UTC