- From: Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor <roconnor@wronski.math.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 15:24:35 -0400 (EDT)
- To: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Arjun Ray wrote:
> > Instead the W3C has choosen to develop XHTML as an XML implementation.
>
> XML is a new hammer. Everything else is therefore a nail.
>
> > I actally haven't looked at the XHTML specs yet, so I don't know whether
> > it resolves these issues or not.
>
> It hasn't. There's some stuff to invoke "namespaces", but that's only the
> latest bogosity in fashion.
So I've read over the specifications for XHTML 1.0 and I'm surprised by
it. I had no idea that migrating to XML would break so much. HTML has
always been a big hack. Now it's much bigger.
Also shouldn't the XHTML 1.0 specs define the semantics of the elements?
I was expecting a clause saying ``The semantics of the elements of XHTML
1.0 are the same as the semantics of the elements of HTML 4.01'', but I
can't seem to find such a statements.
--
Russell O'Connor roconnor@uwaterloo.ca
<http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~roconnor/>
``And truth irreversibly destroys the meaning of its own message''
-- Anindita Dutta, ``The Paradox of Truth, the Truth of Entropy''
Received on Sunday, 3 October 1999 15:25:19 UTC