- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 06:51:36 -0500
On 11/30/06, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote: > > > It has to allow two authoring syntaxes. One HTML and one XML. I thought we > were past that discussion? I fully expected my proposal to either be bounced immediately as sheer lunacy, or for someone to quickly point to the specific reason why it had been rejected before. The sense I am gathering is that the proposal is not obviously insane, and in fact is a bit novel in that such a narrowly scoped adoption of XML syntax -- i.e., only to the extent that it both reflects the web as widely practiced and only to the extent that doing such does not introduce ambiguity into the grammar -- had not been considered before. In any case, I plan to proceed on the assumption that it is worth my time to flesh out the proposal a bit more. The next iteration is likely to also contain thoughts on extensibility and namespaces. Like this proposal was, my intent is that that proposal too will also take great care to only be minimally invasive. - Sam Ruby -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20061130/06d1f4ef/attachment.htm>
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 03:51:36 UTC