Re: [MACCAWS] News.com - First big article on XHTML 2.0

--- MJ Ray <[email protected]> wrote:
> pixelmech <[email protected]> wrote:

> > and some things we need to address, mainly the concern that 2.0
> is 
> > not backward compatible...
> 
> That isn't the first time I've heard that.  It probably stems from
> the claim
> in http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xhtml2-20020805/introduction.html
> that 2.0
> "is not intended to be backward compatible with its earlier
> versions".
> Why is it not so?
> 
> MJR

A quote in the article states essentially that - eventually the web
has to "move on to XML" and sooner or later it has to happen. 2.0
apparently depractes some things (and I havn't looked into it at all
yet so I don't know what) that 1.1 and HTML 4 use.

My question is how "broken" would such pages be? 

Tom

=====
var me = tom.pixelmech.webDeveloper();

http://www.pixelmech.com/
http://www.maccaws.com/
[Making A Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standards]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com