Re: Liaison statement on fragment identifiers from Linking WG

Bill Smith wrote:
> I'd rather see a differnt mime-type altogether rather than rely on the
> "claim" that a document is XHTML. I think such a registration and
> declartion would send a clear message to developers (and therefor to users)
> that XHTML is an application of XML with very specific (HTML-like)
> semantics. This seems a better transition strategy to me given the ad hoc
> nature of much of the HTML on the web.

Many members of the HTML Working Group insisted on this strategy.
However, there is ongoing controversy in the XML community about this,
and we were instructed by W3C management to remove this language from
our draft.  I personally am a huge fan of this argument. If you can
persuade your working group of this as a proper approach, I encourage
you to present it to the W3C as a formal comment.

--
Shane P. McCarron                              phone: +1 612 434-4431
Testing Research Manager                         fax: +1 612 434-4318
                                              mobile: +1 612 799-6942
                                              e-mail: shane@themacs.com

OSF/1, Motif, UNIX and the "X" device are registered trademarks in
the US and other countries, and IT DialTone and The Open Group are
trademarks of The Open Group.

Received on Monday, 17 May 1999 09:58:54 UTC