Re: Beta: xml-stylesheet and xml:lang

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

>* Terje Bless wrote:
>>BTW, this also goes to adress your earlier comments on filename
>>extensions. At some point in the future, I'll make XHTML 1.1 versions
>>of all the pages on v.w3.org. These will be named .xhtml and all links
>>will be changed                                              ^^^^^^^^^
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Now you see why file name extensions are bad, don't you?

No. Why would you say that? All existing links will still work; nobody will
get 404 responses. It's just that all pages internally will take advantage
of Content Negotiation after there is something to actually conneg _with_.

Actually, I'm seriously tempted to name the files index.html.html and
index.html.xhtml just to tweak a certain Dict^H^Hrector's beard! :-)

I've read, and heard, the argument more times then I can count -- hence my
suspicion that you'd been talking to AaronSw and sbp :-) -- and I don't
accept it as canon. It's a usefull guideline along with "Cool URIs Don't
Change", but it's not the gospel or the One And Only Truth[tm]. I'm allowed
to use my noggin for more then hanging a hat on I'm pretty sure... :-)



(
  And, BTW, those filename extensions were there when I got there so
  don't go blaming me for them! :-)
)

-- 
"Temper Temper! Mr. Dre? Mr. NWA? Mr. AK, comin´
 straight outta Compton and y'all better make way?"            -- eminem