- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:48:07 +0100
- To: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@tigerstaden.no>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, XHTML-Liste <www-html@w3.org>
Quoting Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@tigerstaden.no>: >> 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? You must have missed the introduction of the "img" element in the latest draft, that the "a" element is still here, that "h1-h6" are still there without a story on how they interact with new markup, that "accesskey" came back with a new name, etc. However, let me note that the html element defined in XHTML 2.0 is not backwards compatible, it has a new namespace for non obvious reasons. And so do html:em, html:strong, html:var, html:code, html:blockquote, etc. html:q was renamed to xhtml2:quote and I'm still not sure why that was done. User agents should be free to style to style the html:q element as they wish, including styling it with quotes. They should of course let authors overwrite that particular behavior (which is done now and then). And there are many more issues which I'm all saving up for when it reaches last call. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2005 15:48:18 UTC