• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• To: Joel Rees <rees@m...>
• Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 10:39:04 -0400

At 03:05 PM 7/23/2001 +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
>Ann,
>
>Putting words in someone else's mouth:

There's two issues at work: a technical one of conformance, and an 
educational/political one of .... hype?

To the first:

I can write an XHTML 1.1 document that contains only features of XHTML 1.0, 
is it wrong to use the XHTML 1.1 doctype? Is it wrong to call a document 
XHTML 1.0 Transitional when it only uses Strict features?

It's not just a label, these documents would be fully conformant to 1.1 or 
Transitional, they just don't use all the features.

To the second:

Do we really want to walk the path of *requiring* features (beyond those 
structures that are required of an XML document) in order to be compliant? 
Adding bulk to substantiate a brand? Sounds like what's required of some 
software developers in order to gain a "Foo Brand Compliant" sticker.

Ann


Ann Navarro, WebGeek Inc.
http://www.webgeek.com/
Now in print! Effective Web Design, 2nd Edition
http://www.webgeek.com/books/
What's on my mind? http://www.snorf.net/blog/	

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: Joel Rees <rees@s...>

• Prev by Date: Announce: XML-CML Software release on http://www.xml-cml.org/
• Next by Date: Question on id constraints
• Previous by thread: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Next by thread: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread