• To: "bryan" <bry@i...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 09:18:00 -0400
• In-reply-to: <000001c23ec2$dea52e60$2001a8c0@bryans>
• References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020807090700.02465220@m...>

At 12:03 PM 8/8/2002 +0200, bryan wrote:
>For development purposes there is another side to that which I don't
>think is matched, that is to say using XHTML 1.0 that's invalid should
>product glaring problems of a similar nature in major browsers of more
>recent versions, the same for CSS 1.

That's a vendor issue -- if despite languages that require validity for 
conformance, the vendor continues to produce products that do "what we 
think they intended to write" instead of "do what they actually wrote" -- 
then  I suppose the debug process could arguably be harder -- if you debug 
by validation and not sight, that should eliminate most of it.

Ann

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
    • From: "bryan" <bry@i...>

• References:
  • Re: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
  • RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
    • From: "bryan" <bry@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RE: Tree View + / - Lists with XSL
• Next by Date: RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
• Previous by thread: RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
• Next by thread: RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread