- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:31:22 -0500
- To: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
- Cc: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-html-xml@w3.org
Kurt Cagle scripsit: > Are there applications that should only be viewed as being workable within > XHTML and not HTML? Or, to put it another way, is there an upper level of > complexity beyond which the benefit of trying to fit an XML vocabulary into > HTML is simply not worth the effort? I see this as a limiting case to > determine where the boundaries are between the two versions of the language > (for instance, it may very well be that XForms is simply not a viable > proposition for HTML). I think such documents would not be XHTML but compound documents that are XHTML+Whatever. -- A few times, I did some exuberant stomping about, John Cowan like a hippo auditioning for Riverdance, though cowan@ccil.org I stopped when I thought I heard something at http://ccil.org/~cowan the far side of the room falling over in rhythm with my feet. --Joseph Zitt
Received on Friday, 21 January 2011 00:31:50 UTC