- From: Bertil Wennergren <bertilow@hem1.passagen.se>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:59:50 +0200
- To: <www-html@w3.org>
Jelks Cabaniss wrote:
> Indeed. There was a Transitional DTD for HTML 4.0 -- we're *keeping* a
> Transitional DTD for XHTML? Sounds more Eternal than Transitional. Do we
> really want to bring <font> & Co. along to the party? Perhaps it should be
> re-codenamed "Titanic" instead of "Voyager". ...
> People who want to use <font> & Co. can always use HTML 4.0 Transitional.
> There's no shortage of browsers that understand that stuff -- and it has the
> added "benefit" that it doesn't even need to be well-formed. ... :)
The transitional version is needed also for those who want to use
frames. The attribute "target" is not in the strict version. Frames
without any means of referring to them are pretty useless. So if
we ditch transitional we'll have to ditch the frameset DTD as well.
=====================================================================
Bertilo Wennergren
<bertilow@hem1.passagen.se>
<http://purl.oclc.org/net/bertilo>
=====================================================================
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 1999 05:14:48 UTC