- From: Mark Baker <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:25:44 -0500
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Mike, Mike Dierken wrote: > > Why not call it http:meta rather than html:meta? Because of the legacy of equivalent functionality in HTML. I considered creating an entirely new structure for doing this, but that would have orphaned existing practice with HTML/XHTML. I also argued for a single mechanism rather than language specific ones, so that this could be implemented in the web server itself. > Come up with a canonical DTD for the HTTP protocol & the http: namespace > would use elements & attributes (if any) from that. > > <!-- canonical representation (not fully thought out...) --> [snip] I specifically stayed away from trying to change the HTTP protocol syntax. That's a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. I called this a bridge because it allows XML authors to use XML to extend HTTP, without requiring HTTP to change its syntax. MB
Received on Monday, 27 March 2000 14:24:11 UTC