• To: AndrewWatt2000@a...
• Subject: Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:07:31 -0800
• Cc: ann@w..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <14e.17a16195.2b0e5e62@a...>
• References: <14e.17a16195.2b0e5e62@a...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016

AndrewWatt2000@a... wrote:

> That tends to support my viewpoint that it is not axiomatic that further
> development of XHTML is a wise use of limited W3C resources.

What resources in particular are you concerned about? If the editors of 
XHTML 2.0 were not working on XHTML 2.0, they might spend their time at 
the pub or in the hot-tub. That wouldn't advance the Web.

  Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

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

• Prev by Date: Re: The non-future of XHTML x.x [LONG]
• Next by Date: RE: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
• 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