Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful

Daniel Glazman:
>
> XHTML 2.0 is only a guru's dream.

Yes, but sometimes dreams come true. There are elements missing required for
popular use of HTML on the web, though, but many people seem to simply not
understand the concept of markup.

> I strongly suggest dropping all "XHTML 2.0" efforts in favor of a new
> "xHTML 5.0" language.

A /new/ language? XHTML2 is a new language. :P
The possibility of new HTML/XHTML1 versions/updates shouldn't be denied,
though.

> Clearly a successor to HTML 4, feature-oriented,
> made for the _web_.

Well, HTML 3.2 was obviously "feature-oriented".

Christoph Päper