[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]


At 2:21 PM -0700 9/17/02, Ann Navarro wrote:
>At 02:09 PM 9/17/2002 -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>>The why define XHTML 2.0 at all? Why not just use raw XML?
>
>Why use any agreed upon XML vocabulary? Why not just use raw XML all the time?
>

Wee're running in circles. Now we're back to where I was before. If 
XHTML has a agreed upon vocabulary, let's use it to tell us which 
elements are links and how they behave. What's wrong with that? I 
really don't understand your point.
-- 

+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@m... | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
|          XML in a  Nutshell, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly, 2002)          |
|              http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian2/              |
|  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0596002920/cafeaulaitA/  |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:  http://www.cafeaulait.org/      |
|  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/    |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member