W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > July 2001

Re: XHTML 1.0 errata

From: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:43:19 +0200
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
cc: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010720004845-r01010700-6ae48490-0910-010c@192.168.1.6>
[ BTW, are we CCing Mimasa as a courtesy or out of carelessness? ]
[ I know some people prefer not to get CCs of list messages...   ]

On 19.07.01 at 16:58, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

>* Terje Bless wrote:
>>>[XHTML 1.0 Second Edition] Will it include a reference to the current
>>>I-D for the application/xhtml+xml registration? I consider this rather
>>>important for an early adoption of this media type.
>
>>You seem to imply that this media type has associated semantics that the
>>draft does not supply;
>
>Who said, XHTML 1.0 SE could not provide such semantics? :-) At least a
>pointer to upcoming specifications would be very useful.

Well, ok, if it does then I'll be a happy camper; but I really really
wished the I-D would say "This media type means XHTML" even if it then
punted by saying "XHTML may also be delivered with other media types and we
haven't decided how to distinguish between XHTML-variants yet". This I-D is
the "definitive" place to find what a media type means; _not_ XHTML 1.0 SE!

Put another way, I'd like xhtml+xml media type to be associated with
exactly one SGML Declaration and, if DTDs are to be "optional" -- in any
sense of the word -- to be associated with exactly _one_ DTD. If it also
came with a Schema... But lets not get ahead of ourselves. :-)
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 18:48:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:49 GMT