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

Re: HTML/XML Task Force Minutes 18 January 2011

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:26:03 +0000
Message-ID: <4D39431B.1090408@saxonica.com>
To: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
CC: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-html-xml@w3.org
On 21/01/2011 00:27, Kurt Cagle wrote:
> Good discussion and some interesting points. It occurred to me that 
> there may be yet another use case:
> 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).
> Kurt Cagle
> XML Architect
> /Lockheed / US National Archives ERA Project/

I've been wondering the same kind of thing. In fact I've been wondering 
- why exactly would I choose to serialize my content as HTML5 rather 
than XHTML(5?), given that it's not hand-authored?

Michael Kay
Received on Friday, 21 January 2011 08:26:31 UTC

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