- From: Johannes Koch <koch@pixelpark.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 10:01:46 +0200
- To: Nicholas Atkinson <nik@casawana.com>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
Nicholas Atkinson wrote: > That's interesting information Jonny, thank you. I will look forward to > that. Very interesting. > > However, are you familiar with the expression "jam tomorrow"?! ;-) > > Why can't the necessary declarations be added to XHTML 1.0 so that documents > containing EMBED (and PARAM etc.) elements can be validated, *today*. > [Given that the Object tag is not widely supported today, or on legacy > browsers.] The object element (used for for Flash integration) is at least supported by Netscape 4.7+, IE 5+ and Opera 6.04 (tested on Win). > It would take me approximately _five_ minutes to add the necessary > declarations to XHTML 1.0. If that. I don't think that the XHTML 1.0 specification can be changed in that way. It's not just an erratum to add an element with its attributes. > The only practical option for an authoring tool creator/vendor who offers > validation, today, is to bundle a DTD of their own construction which is a > "superset" of the "official" XHTML 1.0 one (or to bundle the official one > and wait for a flood of support calls!). And bundling a superset one, as I > see it, defeats the purpose of having a "common" DTD to validate against. As I told you (in private mail), the HTML Specs are _not_ for legalizing each and every element/attribute invented by some browser vendor just to validate every tag soup document on the web. Documents should be written according to the specs; not specs should be written according to documents. -- Johannes Koch . IT Developer Pixelpark AG . http://www.pixelpark.com Rotherstraße 8 . 10245 Berlin . Germany phone: +49 30 5058 - 1288 . fax: - 1355
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 04:03:06 UTC