[whatwg] some issues
mattraymond at earthlink.net
Tue Jul 6 06:52:06 PDT 2004
Jim Ley wrote:
> Matthew Raymond 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.
I have no clue why you think improvements to the WF2 draft regarding
XHTML (or subset thereof) would be off topic.
> 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.
I was referring to suspicion, not the relevance of browser history.
I had asked why we should suspect the WHAT WG members specifically of
some of the underhanded tactics you suggest people were using nine years
ago. That makes it relevant to what I was saying, even if you don't find
it relevant for your purposes.
>> 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
The stylesheet is not proof that the document is Member-only. All
that means is that someone may have used a stripped down Member-only
document as a template for another document. Also, even if you assume
this one stylesheet reference is proof it is Member-only content, you
have no proof that Ian knew it was Member-only, as you'd have to be
looking carefully at the source to determine this.
More information about the whatwg