W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > January 2011

Re: HTML/XML Task Force Minutes 18 January 2011

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:31:22 -0500
To: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
Cc: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-html-xml@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110121003122.GC13750@mercury.ccil.org>
Kurt Cagle scripsit:

> Are there applications that should only be viewed as being workable within
> XHTML and not HTML? Or, to put it another way, is there an upper level of
> complexity beyond which the benefit of trying to fit an XML vocabulary into
> HTML is simply not worth the effort? I see this as a limiting case to
> determine where the boundaries are between the two versions of the language
> (for instance, it may very well be that XForms is simply not a viable
> proposition for HTML).

I think such documents would not be XHTML but compound documents that are

A few times, I did some exuberant stomping about,       John Cowan
like a hippo auditioning for Riverdance, though         cowan@ccil.org
I stopped when I thought I heard something at           http://ccil.org/~cowan
the far side of the room falling over in rhythm
with my feet.  --Joseph Zitt
Received on Friday, 21 January 2011 00:31:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:27 UTC