[whatwg] W3C compatibility
lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au
Mon Feb 12 04:18:09 PST 2007
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> The practical alternative is to follow the definition that makes most
>> sense. And not try to implement both.
> Short of telepathy, the definition that makes most sense will be the one
> the author was claiming to use.
The intended meaning of the author will be the one that is supported by
> So your practical alternative of implementing only one is to arbitrarily
> misrepresent the intended meaning of documents, albeit in small ways (so
> far). I just don't think that's a good precedent to set.
The reality is that major browser vendors will not be implementing XHTML
2.0, particularly if it reuses the XHTML 1.x namespace and retains all
of its backwards-incompatible changes, and features that are difficult
or impossible to implement.
More information about the whatwg