W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 1999

Re: XHTML

From: Daniel Hiester <alatus@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:04:59 -0800
Message-ID: <002a01bf3607$432a9b80$07bdb2d1@inanis>
To: <www-html@w3.org>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> What a silly statement.  It would be just as easy for HTML to
> evolve in SGML as it is in XML.  No one is forcing you to use
> one Document Type Declaration.  Arguably you can't really do
> that anyway.  That's why architecture forms exist.

It doesn't seem to me that your statement addresses Frank's
statement.  Unless I'm mistaken, Frank is talking about custom
extensions; and you seem to be referring to the evolution of
HTML proper.--
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I think an interesting point is being brought up here... there is a
tremendous gap between the time that the W3C finalizes a recommendation, and
the time that said recommendation is properly implemented in a decent number
of user agents.

With XML / XHTML in place, I guess it would theoretically be possible to
upgrade compatibility from XHTML 1.0 to XHTML 2.0 by merely having a
document refference the new schema... am I right, or do I misunderstand the
technology?

Daniel
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 1999 18:04:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:40 GMT