• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 20:34:30 -0500

At 05:08 PM 11/3/99 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>So XHTML needs a namespace, and the HTML WG is the correct group to assign 
>it.  Whether they want to do it as part of the XHTML 1.0 spec or simply as
>a 3-line W3C recommendation published separately makes little 
>difference. -Tim

Except that the second route probably would have gotten XHTML 1.0 through
without these hitches.  Technically, you're quite right.  Politically, I
think this could have been easier.

Simon St.Laurent
XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies
http://www.simonstl.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: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • RE: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
• Next by Date: Re: A Plea for Schemas
• 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