- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:17:27 +0000
- To: HTML4All <list@html4all.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org
John Foliot wrote: > If the new spec removes the previous mandatory obligation for @alt in > XHTML1, how then can it be backward compatible to XHTML1, as it removes a > requirement previously obliged? It is backwards compatible because valid XHTML1 will always also be valid HTML5. Also, browsers that currently support XHTML1 won't choke on missing @alt. Backwards compatibility (and the "two serialisations" thing) doesn't mean that HTML5 can simply be converted down to XHTML1 (in which case making a mandatory attribute optional *would* be a breach). I'm not defending the decision to make @alt optional, mind...just working out the logic that lets HTML WG do it while still following the backwards-compatibility principle. P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 00:17:42 UTC