-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

On Sunday 29 June 2003 21:28, Christoph P�er wrote:
> Jason M. Kikta <kiktajm@muohio.edu>:
> > The most important thing is to break backwards-
> > compatibility with <object>. This is a smart move,
> I don't think so. To break backwards compatibility if required, is okay for
> XHTML2, but to break it just to break it, is just dumb.
True.

> > IE is so horribly broken in this respect,
>
> IE, at least the Windows version, doesn't even try to support XHTML yet,
> let alone XHTML2. So why change anything of the spec based on pure
> assumptions of future bugs in future browser versions?
I absolutely agree.
Furthermore imho it definitely is not the task of a specification to deal with 
or take care of bugs and flaws of implementations, even if it is such a 
widespread and well known one.

Why shall all implementors be forced to follow a move of a change in a spec in 
respect of only a single faulty implementation?


Bye
- -- 
ITCQIS GmbH
Christian Wolfgang Hujer
Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter (Shareholding CEO)
Telefon: +49  (0)89  27 37 04 37
Telefax: +49  (0)89  27 37 04 39
E-Mail: Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com
WWW: http://www.itcqis.com/ 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/ALNBzu6h7O/MKZkRAoUxAKDH33/udeiVMwfMzRBXWTEExj3P7QCg2LoS
ugs6bY1PN/7fJTTLDt0qb50=
=tni3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----