Re: Comments on XHTML 2.0 Working Draft

Jonny Axelsson wrote:
>>8.5. The br element
>>-------------------
>>I agree with Jonas here. What's the purpose of having a deprecated
>>element in a document explicitly marked as backwards-incompatible?
> 
> The goal for XHTML 2.0 is not to be backwards incompatible, but backwards 
> compatibility is is much less important than it was for XHTML 1.0, and 
> should not be used as an excuse not to remove/fix misfeatures just because 
> they have been there before. General backwards compatibility is still 
> necessary, otherwise XHTML 2.0 would not be XHTML, but some other language.

If backwards compatibility should not be used as an excuse to keep <br>, 
what *is* the excuse?

> Who is to say that more features will not be deprecated as the working draft 
> progresses? Good examples here could be hr or strong.

"8.20. The strong element
The strong element indicates strong emphasis for its contents."

Why should strong be deprecated?

/Jonas

Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 05:57:14 UTC