Tu nous fais des arguments à la pBpG.
Oui, xhtml évolue. Avoir UN standard pour les pages web, n'implique pas que ce standard ne doive pas évoluer. ODF est un standard. OOXML n'est pas une évolution de ODF. Je me trompe ?
Because earlier versions of HTML were special-purpose languages, it was necessary to ensure a level of backwards compatibility with new versions so that new documents would still be usable in older browsers. However, thanks to XML and style sheets, such strict element-wise backwards compatibility is no longer necessary, since an XML-based browser, of which at the time of writing means more than 95% of browsers in use, can process new markup languages without having to be updated. Much of XHTML 2 works already in existing browsers; much, but not all: just as when forms and tables were added to HTML, and people had to wait for new version of browsers before being able to use the new facilities, some parts of XHTML 2, principally XForms and XML Events, still require user agents that understand that functionality.
[^] # Re: Et bah...
Posté par IsNotGood . En réponse au journal ODF mort-né ?. Évalué à 1.
Oui, xhtml évolue. Avoir UN standard pour les pages web, n'implique pas que ce standard ne doive pas évoluer. ODF est un standard. OOXML n'est pas une évolution de ODF. Je me trompe ?
1.1.2. Backwards compatibility :
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/introduction.html#backCompat
Tu me donnes le rapport avec OOXML et ODF ?