[whatwg] Re: Is this introducing incompatibilities with future W3C work
jim.ley at gmail.com
Fri Jun 25 13:39:02 PDT 2004
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:47:13 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> > Right, Then I think it would be good if you could get some Authoring
> > Tool companies on board, they'll have useful things to say I'm sure.
> This is an open mailing list. Anyone can post. (For what it's worth, I'm
> aware of at least one authoring tool implementor on the list.)
I suggested on the WG, not on the mailing list, the same as with the
> > Yes, but it doesn't - so I guess you're conceding there isn't one -
> That's a W3C issue, really.
Not really, as the WHATWG obviously subscribes to the view (lots of my
objections would be gone if you weren't stepping on XHTML toes) you
can publish your own HTML version without complaint from me, I think
it's a very good thing.
> > why not just an HTML vocabulary though (then you don't need to pollute
> > namespaces you don't control)
> Because to UAs that implement both, there is no difference between HTML4
> and XHTML1.
I don't agree with that! Mozilla certainly does lots of awful things
with application/xhtml+xml content that it doesn't do with HTML
content. In any case it's not an answer, indeed it's more of an
argument for doing just one, since there's no different and UA's
More information about the whatwg