- From: Tim Roberts <tim@wiseguysonly.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:44:01 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi Tina, > > Or are you by this trying to say that "I meant XHTML 1.0 Transitional > all along, and not XHTML 1.1 even if that is the latest and most > thoroughly structure/layout separated version" ? Is that what I am trying to say? I seriously don't know becasue I am asking for some clarification in a few areas that I would like to know more about. The DOCTYPE I placed in the example for comment is one I regularly use. So the question is how does that affect the example you gave. Was I implying I meant XHTML 1.0 Transitional. I didn't intend to, but did I? > > Oh, I hope not. If so we're boiling down to "What, exactly, are the > accessibility differences between XHTML 1.0 Transitional and HTML 4.01 > Transitional, and that would just so water this debate down to > nothing. Once again, I am not debating here. I am asking advice from the list. > > > PS, nice talk in your previous message. > > Thankyou. I'll take that as a compliment. I always take some time out > to moderate what I first wrote. I wouldn't want to hurt anyone. Yes, Bollocks and ass are not that offensive to me, just a bit unprofessional. Tim -- Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 07:50:06 UTC