W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2005

Re: <spoiler> element

From: Oskar Welzl <lists@welzl.info>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:21:32 +0100
To: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
Cc: Devin Bayer <devin@freeshell.org>, Jeremy Rand <jeremy@asofok.org>, www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <1134328892.11965.25.camel@erde.hormayrgasse>

reffering to "those out there who don't understand why HTML is even
being converted to XHTML", we might as well take a break and ask
ourselves why xhtml is being converted to xhtml 2.0.
i dont see people voting for it with their feet, as david put it (in a
different context) in his mail on dec 9th ... ;-)

Am Freitag, den 09.12.2005, 23:12 -0500 schrieb Kelly Miller:
> I wouldn't care about having to add the XLink attributes either (I tend 
> to do a lot of copy/pasting if I have to use the same tags/attributes 
> over and over again); I'm referring to those out there who don't 
> understand why HTML is even being converted to XHTML (and there were a 
> lot of them in the HTML class I just took) and would definitely balk at 
> having to write xlink:type="simple" every time they would have to create 
> a link.  That's not even mentioning the number of such websites that 
> claim to be XHTML but lack both the XML prolog and the xmlns attribute.  
> The former there is a good reason for forgetting, but why forget the latter?
> 
> It seems to me there's currently an understanding issue when it comes to 
> XML Namespaces.
> 
> Oskar Welzl wrote:
> 
> >There are various opinions on this topic; me, myself and I all would
> >happily add xlink:type="simple" if, in return, we'd get
> >xlink:type="extended" and external linkbases. If, in return, we'd use
> >standards in XHTML, rather than home-brew proprietary solutions; the
> >same standards that are used in Open Document, SVG, XTM, XBRL...
> >Maybe it's more verbose than people are used to, maybe extended links
> >and external linkbases are more difficult to implement - but: hey, they
> >are hoping for UAs to deal with the Metainformation Attributes Module as
> >well, aren't they? 
> >
> >But, as I said earlier: This topic is probably dead as can be, google
> >for "xlink xhtml" and you'll find everything has been said and done.
> >(I like these hopeless cases, though; anybody for a new "@hreflang in
> >XHTML2"-thread? I still believe Anne got it all wrong in
> >http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/06/hreflang-and-type ;-)...)
> >
> >Oskar
> >  
> >
> 
Received on Sunday, 11 December 2005 19:21:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:04 GMT