- From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@tigerstaden.no>
- Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:39:35 +0100
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, XHTML-Liste <www-html@w3.org>
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:52:28 +0100, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote: > Spelled words are empty and the element "document" has not more sense > than element "html" (specifically after 15 years of history by a social > group). So, basically, the <html> element should stay for historical reasons? Isn't XHTML 2.0 supposed to be breaking most of this history and not be backward-compatible anyway? Why does the 15 years of history with <html> apply to XHTML 2.0 if none of the other (excuse my language) rubbish from older HTML specifications doesn't? -- Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- http://virtuelvis.com/quark/ «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2005 09:38:33 UTC