W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Beta: xml-stylesheet and xml:lang

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 22:10:31 +0200
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <a01060005-1021-D0057090E85511D6AC5400039300CF5C@[]>

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
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 16:10:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:35 UTC