- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:22:19 -0500
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: mark.birbeck@x-port.net, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 11:53 +1000, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Mark Birbeck wrote: [...] > > That's all fair enough, and people are entitled to pursue things > > however they think best. But it's a little rich now to come from this > > viewpoint and say that you want to create version 5 of XHTML. > > The fact is, whether the XHTML2 WG likes it or not, we are creating a > revision of XHTML by extending XHTML 1.x. Therefore, it is correct for > it to be called XHTML. The XHTML2 WG, on the other hand, has been > creating an entirely new language that is unrelated to XHTML 1.x in > reality. Please... Claiming that something is "fact" or "reality" doesn't make it so; it's argument by assertion and not terribly polite. You're welcome to your opinion, though it's more helpful to share the arguments that led you to it. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 14:22:29 UTC