On 10 Aug 2007, at 09:48, Dean Edridge wrote:
David. "New features added". Really? I don't think I'm asking too much to be able to use features that have been W3C recommendations for 8 years.
It would be nice, but I don't think that it should be a priority just because its been a recommendation for a long time.
Nor was I suggesting that bug fixing be overlooked as these "new features" be added.
Given limited resources, only so much can be done. I think a complete and less buggy implementation of HTML 4.x, CSS 2.x would be more useful then XHTML support.
It's not for you or anyone else to decide that XHTML has little benefits and then push for the deprecation of it.
I'm not. I just don't think the benefits of it as a target language for authoring web pages are significant when compared to other technologies that support could be improved for, and I'd rather see those worked on first.
Pretending that Internet Explorer has not held back the progress of the web is not in the best interest of Web Standards in general.
I'm not doing that, though, but IE 6 was pretty good (compared to the competition at the time) when it came out. It fell behind because development work ceased on it for over half a decade. Complaining about that now that work has resumed on it isn't particularly productive.
It's 2007, surely people should be able to use XHTML and SVG by now.
HTML 4.01 and CSS 2 are older standards then either of those. Surely people should be able to use all their features by now?
And aren't there several third party plugins that add support for SVG to IE anyway?
-- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
