- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:26:03 +0000
- To: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
- CC: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-html-xml@w3.org
Received on Friday, 21 January 2011 08:26:31 UTC
On 21/01/2011 00:27, Kurt Cagle wrote: > Good discussion and some interesting points. It occurred to me that > there may be yet another use case: > > 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). > > Kurt Cagle > XML Architect > /Lockheed / US National Archives ERA Project/ > I've been wondering the same kind of thing. In fact I've been wondering - why exactly would I choose to serialize my content as HTML5 rather than XHTML(5?), given that it's not hand-authored? Michael Kay Saxonica
Received on Friday, 21 January 2011 08:26:31 UTC