Re: XHTML Basic 1.1 and setting input field to numeric mode

Luca Passani wrote:
> last time I checked XHTML 2.0 (admittedly some time ago) I realised 
> that it was something totally detached from what HTML and XHTML are 
> today. If this is no longer the case, please educate me.
> If XHTML 2.0 is still the revolution it seemed to be a few years back, 
> what's the point in smuggling some of the aspects of XHTML 2.0 into 
> 1.1? making people's lives more difficult?
Err.... what?  marking something as deprecated is a mechanism for 
assisting document authors and implementors by indicating that a feature 
is at risk in the future.  It allows people time to get used to NOT 
using the feature if they choose.  There is no risk if you do rely upon 
the feature *now*.  The risk is that some day if you want to migrate to 
some future language (e.g. XHTML 2) you may not find that feature (and 
FWIW that feature is still in XHTML 2 right now).

As to "smuggling" - give me a break.  The direction of the community is 
to move away from using bad markup conventions such as embedding @style 
because it makes it very very difficult for user agents to provide 
user-selectable alternate styling mechanisms (among many other important 
reasons).  The W3C has been following the direction of the community in 
this for years and years.

I appreciate that you are coming into this late, and it may be the case 
that others will want to chime in and help you understand why @style is 
a bad idea.  But that isn't really the point.  The point is that you can 
use it if you want in XHTML Basic 1.1.  You could not use it at all in 
XHTML Basic 1.0.  So..... you're welcome!

Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet:

Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 13:57:15 UTC