Dan Connolly wrote: > Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> >> >> I don't see a reply to: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007JulSep/0000.html > > > It's a comment on the primer, so it wasn't critical path to REC, > but yes, it's still outstanding. > Hmmm, I've just looked at every instance of the word HTML or html in the primer. I don't think there is much room for real confusion. All the early uses are followed by examples that have a declaration of being XHTML. The later examples all have an xmlns decl for xhtml. I would encourage an editor to reply to the commentator asking for where this potential confusion actually arises. JeremyReceived on Thursday, 20 September 2007 13:46:57 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:50 GMT