• To: AndrewWatt2000@a...
• Subject: Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:37:00 +0100
• Cc: ann@w..., xml-dev@l...
• Organization: Expway
• References: <6.2a0f3a9.2b0cfc72@a...>
• Reply-to: robin.berjon@e...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

AndrewWatt2000@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 20/11/2002 14:43:18 GMT Standard Time, 
> ann@w... writes:
>> <wild_supposition type="breathless">You just have to wonder why anyone 
>> would bother continually responding to obvious flame 
>> bait</wild_supposition>
 >
> Hi Ann,
> 
> I will simply observe that your response totally lacks any logical 
> argument to support the supposition that XHTML 2.0 is a good idea or 
> that it is relevant in the changing world which will soon be upon us.

The logic is quite simple:

   - AndrewWatt2000@a... can't refrain from posting ugly HTML to mailing lists
   - XHTML 2.0 is a big improvement on ugly HTML
     => XHTML 2.0 will make several lists less painful to follow

-- 
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
Research Engineer, Expway
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE  8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
    • From: "Ann Navarro" <ann@w...>

• References:
  • Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...

• Prev by Date: Re: RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic
• Next by Date: RE: RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic
• Previous by thread: Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
• Next by thread: RE: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread