David Dorward wrote:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:12:10PM +0100, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
The design predates CSS 2, so there wasn't a suitable alternative.
XHTML 1.0 is dated 26 January 2000, while CSS 2 is 12 May 1998 ... or am
I missing something here?
XHTML 1.0 is a direct port (well, almost) of HTML 4.01 to XML. HTML
4.01 is a bug fix to HTML 4.0. HTML 4.0 came out in December '97.
Ah, gotcha. It's starting to make sense, in a perverse sort of way.
It still (maybe) leaves the question why XHTML 1.1 decided to keep them
in the forms modules, since 1.1 is meant as a
"consistent, forward-looking document type cleanly separated from the
deprecated, legacy functionality of HTML 4"
Then again, maybe they felt that rows and cols weren't "legacy
functionality" for some reason...
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__________________________________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__________________________________________________________
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
