- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:14:19 +0100
- To: www-html@w3.org
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Are you saying you were surprised to discover we weren't developing a > presentational language? Yes. Especially given that its supporters were bandying around terms like "anti-presentationalists". There are still lots of issues, though, e.g. changing the way character sets are specified without retaining the legacy mechanism (I have more noted and will probably find even more if I can find time to do a proper review). > You might be equally surpised to learn that the spec will be defining > all widely used and supported presentational features in due course. > However, that doesn't mean their use will be conforming. Unfortunately, the fact that it doesn't yet do this, probably means it isn't much use for Lynx, as the developers would probably have to do a major re-write which would involve finding their own solutions to the handling of other constructs. Some of this will be necessary, even for hte final specification, as I doubt that you will be providing rules for HTML 3.0 compatibility. >
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2007 14:14:41 UTC