- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:08:17 -0800
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, <www-html@w3.org>
On 2/8/05 11:55 AM, "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org> wrote: > For example, the element object is not implemented correctly on any > browser I have tried so far and I say any, and believe me I would love > to be proved wrong. With all due respect, such statements are hollow without an accompanying URL to a valid page using <object> which you believe demonstrates this. > I'm waiting with impatience for the last call version of XHTML 2.0, > because that would be the opportunity to define what has to be > implemented and what is vague or not implementable uniformly. This is contrary to the statement you first made: > at the time > of HTML 4.01, there was no public W3C test suite, and no serious > implementation report table has been done. In other words, another (X)HTML specification is not what is needed. On the contrary, as you point out, what is needed for (X)HTML is: * more/better public W3C tests * serious implementation reports to which I would add: * errata and revisions that incorporate the errata. Tantek
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2005 17:08:19 UTC