[whatwg] some issues

Jim Ley jim.ley at gmail.com
Tue Jul 6 06:32:40 PDT 2004

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:11:06 -0400, Matthew Raymond
<mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
>    Sounds like you have the makings of a good thread on how WF2 needs
> to be corrected to degrade gracefully on XHTML Basic user agents.

Not really, since the spec proposes nothing about XHTML Basic, so
anything I'd say would be off-topic.

> > Not that I actually think it's relevant, but many of the individuals
> > in the WHAT WG were involved with browsers at the time. (which is good
> > of course, getting their expertise involved)
>    I fail to see your point from a suspicion angle. 

Did you miss the "not that I think it's relevant" part, where I
thought I made it pretty clear that I didn't think it was relevant.  I
was simply rebutting your suggestion that because Safari/Mozilla
didn't exist the history of browser development wasn't relevant.

>    Now look at this URL:
>    http://www.hixie.ch/specs/xbl/XBL2.html
>    It does NOT have a Member-only designation.

It uses the member only stylesheet, it's a member only document, if
that's really the defence for ignoring W3 process, it's a pretty poor

>    Yes, I can simply leave your paranoid ravings unanswered in a public
> forum.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with doing so, Others are free to judge
from what's written.


More information about the whatwg mailing list