Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: > +1 for making serving XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml a MUST. In the > current XML-hostile climate, I would see no harm in W3C also defining an > text/html serialization of XHTML 1.1, especially in order to backport > accessibility features (HTML 4.02 would be an equally good name for > this). But please end the twilight zone non-transitional transition of > XHTML 1.0 as text/html. > I am sympathetic to the idea of a text/html serialization... but we got slapped pretty hard for doing that in XHTML 1.0. Basically, such a "serialization" ends up being a series of conventions that, if adhered to, will permit well formed, valid XHTML 1.1 content to sort of work in legacy user agents. Is that what you are looking for? Or did you have something else in mind? -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.comReceived on Tuesday, 3 April 2007 01:08:04 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:21:02 UTC