[whatwg] some issues
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:
> 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
Sure, there's nothing wrong with doing so, Others are free to judge
from what's written.
More information about the whatwg