- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 22:50:30 +1100
Mike Schinkel wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> I'll name the difference of XHTML_all and XHTML_compatible as >> XHTML_incompatible. Lachlan gave examples that indicate that >> XHTML_incompatible is not empty. > > I'm sorry but may I please ask for a reference? I unfortunately don't > know where to find that needle in the haystack. Or did you mean Ian > Hickson?: http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml No, he meant the list of examples that demonstrate the kinds of errors millions of authors make when attempting to use XHTML as text/html. http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-December/008272.html FWIW, that list was based on this old article of mine which has a lot more information and discussion in it. http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/12/xhtml-beginners >> This means that you lose any benefits that hinge on you only having >> to ensure targeting XHTML_all. > > That benefit is so huge it can't even be easily calculated. What benefits are there and what makes them so huge? > Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> http://www.w3.org/mid/44FD91FE.1090805 at lachy.id.au > > In that email you wrote: > > "My point is that the whole idea of embedding > XML in HTML is nonsense and should have no > part in any transition from HTML to XML. I'll be > explaining this last point more in a future post." > > Have you written that post yet, and if so may I have the reference? http://www.w3.org/mid/44FD9995.60301 at lachy.id.au -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Monday, 4 December 2006 03:50:30 UTC