- From: Philip TAYLOR [PC336/H-XP] <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:04:30 +0000
- To: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
- CC: www-html@w3.org, "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@Math.Berkeley.EDU>
Etan Wexler wrote: > > Russell O'Connor wrote to <www-html@w3.org> on 7 January 2003 in > "Promotion of XHTML" > (<mid:Pine.SOL.4.44.0212301305130.18274-100000@blue3.math.berkeley.edu>): > > > It blows my mind that the W3C seems to bury it's head in the sand about > > the <br /> issues with ``compatibility'' between XHTML and HTML. I just > > don't understand what they were thinking when they came up with such > > plainly false claims of compatibility. > > The compatibility that exists in XHTML is with common user agents, not > with HTML. > > But, anyway, HTML has never been an SGML application in any practical > way. HTML was and is a fast and loose language, defined in part by > Requests For Comments and Recommendations, but also by the > functionaility of popular user agents. I totally disagree. The functionality of popular user agents is completely irrelevant to the /definition/ of HTML, which is defined solely by W3C standards; anything not meeting those standards is not HTML but a text file containing angle brackets and characters in some arbitrarily defined sequence. Philip Taylor, RHBNC
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 10:04:51 UTC