- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:14:07 +0200
>>The WHATWG principles are laid out here: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webapps-cdf-ws/papers/opera.html > > So you're now conceding that this is an Opera thing, not 7 guys who > don't recognise companies? We've still not had any patent etc. info. That is from Mozilla as well. >> * The core features of an XML vocabulary should require the use of >> elements from only one namespace. > > You never really explained why this constraint existed, IE does > support multiple namespaces (regardless of the legality in authoring > such docs) so it's not based on an IE6 legacy requirement, which is > what I understood the main motivation of WF2 was. It is difficult for authors to use multiple namespaces. The became big, because of it's simplicity. >>The net effect of these two points, both of which underpin all WHATWG >>work, is that anything added to HTML4 must be added to XHTML1, and that >>anything added to XHTML1 must not require namespaces to be used. > > Rather depressing. no-one's yet explained how HTML 4 and XHTML 1 > really create a migration path, could you explain now perhaps? XHTML 1.0 is a XML formulation of HTML 4.01. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:14:07 UTC