[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/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|

Cart



