> [Original Message]
> From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
>
> On Wednesday, Oct 29, 2003, at 19:20 Europe/Helsinki, Lachlan Hunt 
> wrote:
>
> > This has the advantage that older browsers
>
> XHTML 2.0 is inappropriate for delivery as text/html and is not in the 
> XHTML 1.0 namespace. Therefore, there are no older browsers that 
> support any other part of XHTML 2.0, either (beyond CSS styling of 
> generic XML, which isn't particularly useful when authoring Web pages).

It may be inappropriate, but it will happen.  Given what has happened
with XHTML and HTML so far, I can confidently predict that there will be
users who use XHTML 2.0 elements in HTML documents and that there
will be tag soup browsers that attempt to make sense of the documents
that such authors produce.  Therefore, such effects should be considered
when deciding how to do things in XHTML 2.0.  This doesn't mean that
it should be a major concern, but where it does not detract form the
design goals of XHTML 2.0, graceful degradation when the inevitable
use of XHTML 2.0 elements are placed in HTML documents should
be considered.