• From: "Don Park" <donpark@d...>
• To: "'xml-dev'" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:08:45 -0800

>Would it not save everyone a lot of anguish if XHTML 1.0 were 
>just HTML 4.01
>recast as XML 1.0, in other words without mentioning 
>namespaces *at all*, and
>saving the namespace stuff for future versions (if it's proven 
>to be viable)?

I don't see much difference between zero and one (one?:) namespace
and since there is definite need for a namespace (i.e. XSL) to
distinguish (X)HTML tags from others, I prefer one over zero.

I must say, I was surprised by the decision and have now a more
healthy respect for the W3C process although I suspect XML-DEV has
now become an informal part of the process.  At least all the
stress we must go through to exert that reactive influence is
high enough to prevent abuse <g>.

Best,

Don Park    -   mailto:donpark@d...
Docuverse   -   http://www.docuverse.com


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...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
    • From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@j...>

• References:
  • RE: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
    • From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
• Next by Date: RE: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
• Next by thread: RE: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread