- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:21:57 +0900
- To: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Frank, On Jan 19, 2008, at 18:30 , Frank Ellermann wrote: > It's also a way to get rid of errors and warnings you're determined > to ignore. The X in XHTML is supposed to mean eXtensible. The X in XHTML comes from the X in XML. The reasons behind the choice of Strict conformance versus extensibility via namespaces, and methods of extensibility being worked upon (modularization of XHTML, compound documents with the WICD framework) has *nothing* to do with taking the (X)HTML DTDs, adding non-standards stuff and pretending it's still standard (X)HTML. You know that, so do I, and my point is that it would be badly deceptive to talk of custom DTDs to someone who does not. > Using <embed> (or <applet>) instead of or in addition to <object> > isn't too harmful, doing it at all can be questionable. If some > IE folks think that say security="restricted" helps with <iframe> > let them check it out, and obviously they wouldn't be interested > in "security is undefined" errors reflecting the state of the art > for HTML 4. If they don't publish a DTD for it it's their fault. IMHO pointing toward the HTML5 effort and its in-progress status, which indeed is the source of this thread (the original poster meant “why is this not validating now that it's going to be in HTML5”, I gather) would be much more constructive than giving people custom DTDs and letting them think they have valid HTML. -- olivier
Received on Sunday, 20 January 2008 10:22:06 UTC