- From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 03:40:01 +0900 (JST)
- To: www-international@w3.org
Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> TT> ok. Maybe I missed it, but a clear indication not to pursue the approach
> TT> would save time.
>
> Not to try to ad parts of 1.1 to 1.0 yourself? Oh, i thought you had
> already decided that.
As the HTML Activity Lead, I strongly recommend NOT to pursue that
approach.
> TT> Also, based on my (limited) experience with browsers, not all CSS
> TT> features are supported or supported the same way, which is why I wanted
> TT> to maintain some of the older usages.
>
> Not really a consideration in a page that tests support for rendering
> ruby markup, I would suggest.
Right. Ruby was designed for XML vocabularies, such as XHTML 1.1.
XHTML 1.1 was NOT designed to be backwards compatible with HTML
browsers. In particular you SHOULD NOT serve XHTML 1.1 documents as
'text/html'. See XHTML Media Types Note for details.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
Regards,
--
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 14:40:04 UTC