• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier toauthor) XML
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:14:42 -0400
• References: <4.2.0.58.20020623163907.03bd6f10@p...><4.2.0.58.20020623172350.03d1acf0@p...><019c01c21aff$bb76c160$0200a8c0@e...><002401c21b35$d225bb60$961b3044@r...><130601c21b5d$5ef75090$0400a8c0@scott>

[Rob Lugt]

> Thomas B. Passin wrote
> > Plus, xhtml with short tags wouldn't work in standard browsers.
>
> Are you suggesting that standard browser compatibility is a reasonable
> criteria for judging future modifications to XML?  If so, I wonder how XML
> 1.1 [1] will fair.
>
 I think that's exactly what is should be expected from xhtml.  So if there
were optional features that would cause the parse to fail, there would have
to be a capability to turn them off.  More complexity.

Cheers,

Tom P

• References:
  • Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier to author) XML
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier to author) XML
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier to author) XML
    • From: "Rob Lugt" <roblugt@e...>
  • Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier toauthor) XML
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier to author) XML
    • From: "Rob Lugt" <roblugt@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: DTDs, W3C Schemas, RELAX NG, Schematron?
• Next by Date: Re: DTDs, W3C Schemas, RELAX NG, Schematron?
• Previous by thread: Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier to author) XML
• Next by thread: Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier to author) XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread