• From: "Hunter, David" <dhunter@M...>
• To: 'Tim Berners-Lee' <timbl@w...>
• Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:09:34 -0500

Thank you for posting this here, Tim.  Without getting into the "one vs.
three vs. none" debate [yet], I'm glad the issue will get more consideration
before the spec is "recommended", since the, ahem, heated debate never
really seemed settled to me.

I am also hoping, after reading the post by Ann Navarro, that a revised
version of the spec will be ready soon.  Although I didn't want to see the
spec go on as it was, I also don't want it to be held up for a long time
either, because I think we all want XHTML to be successful, so that it can
take over for HTML as soon as possible.  ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Berners-Lee [mailto:timbl@w...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 4:34 PM
To: xml-dev
Subject: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG


FYI - tim

<big-snip/>

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 unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Prev by Date: Re: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
• Next by Date: XML as a top-level media type (was Re: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG)
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
• Next by thread: re: Re: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread