Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful

• From: Daniel Glazman <glazman@netscape.com>
• Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:40:02 +0100
• To: www-html@w3.org
• Message-ID: <3E26A822.20003@netscape.com>

Jonny Axelsson wrote:

> This ties in with my concept of "not backwards compatible". Many pages 
> out there might just as well been written in PostScript. These will not 
> translate easily into XHTML 2.0, and I don't care. Pages that are well 
> made in XHTML 1.0 or XHTML 1.1 should translate into XHTML 2.0 with 
> little or no cost.

Not sure I am glad to read that W3C spends so much resources for .5% of
the Web not "caring" about the other 99.5.

</Daniel>

Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 07:40:38 UTC