Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 06:19 PM 8/29/99 -0400, Ann Navarro wrote: >But again, let's get back to the issue at hand: is XHTML 1.0 something that >should go to Rec. It's obvious that XHTML 1.0 is a good idea - the notion that you can send along a package of tags that are known to be readable by a fast lightweight XML parser, but carry the widely-known HTML semantics, is an unambiguous good thing, and the HTML WG has done well in designing it. The gripe is with this silly 3-namespace notion, which materially decreases the utility of XHTML and establishes a violently dangerous precedent. If I were a voting member of the W3C advisory council, which I'm not, I'd vote to send it back to the WG to fix the namespace breakage, and once fixed, I'd vote to make it a W3C recommendation. -Tim xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
