- From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 12:51:07 +1000
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, "Philip Taylor" <philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk>, public-html@w3.org
On 8/2/07, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Well, the easiest way to avoid that is not to put in claims like "XML > bad" in the first place :-) Absolutely. Any such statements would definitely need context, and even so I'm not sure they belong in the spec. You know, if HTML 5 remains current for a decade (as HTML 4.01 has!) such statements may be irrelevant. (Whereas advice on good titles should stand the test of time). "Today" I lean towards HTML for publishing web pages. I use XHTML within Atom feeds. And if I am doing any backend work (content management/manipulation/storage etc) then I would absolutely use XHTML (usually a custom variant that might include bits from XHTML2 draft, HTML5 of other XML vocabs) - even if it is later transformed and deployed as HTML (or XHTML in a feed). In the end I don't find any "better" - in fact, they work very well together. The spec should be neutral on the topic, though advice on traps and correct handling is vital (even if hard to understand at times - like @xmlns ;) cheers Ben
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2007 02:51:20 UTC