- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 20:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, www-style@w3.org
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Simon Pieters wrote: > On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:07:19 +0100, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> > wrote: > > > To be hardline, though: authors that do not understand these types of > > differences between XHTML and HTML should not switch, then. If they > > get caught out by the non-magic behaviour of <body>, then they're > > probably (and I'll make a sweeping generalisation) the types of > > authors that don't quite know why they should be moving to XHTML in > > the first place and are only doing it because "it's fashionable" > > nowadays. > > I don't disagree. But why should <body> be non-magic in XHTML when it is > magic in HTML? The XHTML2 WG asked for it to be. It really is that simple. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 20:10:41 UTC