On 2/8/05 11:55 AM, "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org> wrote:

> For example, the element object is not implemented correctly on any
> browser I have tried so far and I say any, and believe me I would love
> to be proved wrong.

With all due respect, such statements are hollow without an accompanying URL
to a valid page using <object> which you believe demonstrates this.


> I'm waiting with impatience for the last call version of XHTML 2.0,
> because that would be the opportunity to define what has to be
> implemented and what is vague or not implementable uniformly.

This is contrary to the statement you first made:

> at the time 
> of HTML 4.01, there was no public W3C test suite, and no serious
> implementation report table has been done.


In other words, another (X)HTML specification is not what is needed.

On the contrary, as you point out, what is needed for (X)HTML is:

 * more/better public W3C tests
 * serious implementation reports

to which I would add:

 * errata and revisions that incorporate the errata.

Tantek