- From: Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor <roconnor@wronski.math.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 15:24:35 -0400 (EDT)
- To: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Arjun Ray wrote: > > Instead the W3C has choosen to develop XHTML as an XML implementation. > > XML is a new hammer. Everything else is therefore a nail. > > > I actally haven't looked at the XHTML specs yet, so I don't know whether > > it resolves these issues or not. > > It hasn't. There's some stuff to invoke "namespaces", but that's only the > latest bogosity in fashion. So I've read over the specifications for XHTML 1.0 and I'm surprised by it. I had no idea that migrating to XML would break so much. HTML has always been a big hack. Now it's much bigger. Also shouldn't the XHTML 1.0 specs define the semantics of the elements? I was expecting a clause saying ``The semantics of the elements of XHTML 1.0 are the same as the semantics of the elements of HTML 4.01'', but I can't seem to find such a statements. -- Russell O'Connor roconnor@uwaterloo.ca <http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~roconnor/> ``And truth irreversibly destroys the meaning of its own message'' -- Anindita Dutta, ``The Paradox of Truth, the Truth of Entropy''
Received on Sunday, 3 October 1999 15:25:19 UTC