- From: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:33:42 -0800
- To: "'HTML4All'" <list@html4all.org>, <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > 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. > Gotcha - thanks Patrick. Still feels regressive to me...
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 18:33:54 UTC