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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:14 UTC