- From: John Colby <John.colby@btinternet.com>
- Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:43:39 +0000
- To: public-evangelist@w3.org
At 10:11 06/12/2002 +0000, you wrote: > "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org> > > At 23:37 +0000 2002-12-05, Jim Ley wrote: > > >their design choices, I feel the W3 need to explain the rather strange > > >design choice to choose the poorly supported XHTML as text/html over >HTML > > >4.01 - if there are good reasons for it, then we need to know them so >we > > >can include the same. > > > > One of the reason is called XSLT and RSS. If you have an XHTML page > > (XML) you can easily produce an RSS feed of your page. > >And if you hane an XHTML version of your page you can easily produce a >HTML 4.01 version of your page with XSLT. The content-management and >final form versions of the page do not need to be the same. > >Jim. I'm really getting puzzled by al this insistence on HTML4.01. As I understood it, HTML4.01 is the last of the line of HTML recommendations by W3C, we're now onto XHTML 1.0 (an XML application) and XHTML 1.1. XHTML2.0 proposals have been published. So why try to tie into a dying legacy language that has absolutely no future? Regards John And apologies to Jim - this should originally have gone to the list
Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 07:43:43 UTC