Re: XHTML 2.0: Where Is It Going?

* Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>>  => guidelines suggest to use the 'lang' and 'name' attributes
>>     together with 'id' and 'xml:lang'
>The *1.0* guidelines *suggest* that. It's not even a conformance

Normative section 5.1 says, you must follow them in order to
label the document as text/html. It's not a conformance requirement,
since it doesn't deal with general XHTML document conformance.

Since XHTML 1.0 is a normative reference of all related XHTML
recommendations, I think the guidelines and the permission to
label XHTML as text/html apply also to them, but feel free to
correct me here. If you do, we end up with the same statement,
XHTML 1.1 and XHTML Basic 1.0 can't be delivered as text/html.

>>  => I can't use XHTML 1.1 and XHTML Basic 1.0 since
>>     I need both and must deliver them as text/html
>Why do you need them both?

I meant to say both attributes.

>My advice is to follow the syntactic constraints of 1.1 and Basic if
>you are using them and don't worry particularly about non-normative
>guidelines in specifications that have been replaced by these.

I do care, since I want to deliver my documents to user agents and
therfore I need an applicable MIME type.

>However, backwards compatability with @name is a bit of a worry for
>some people, so just use m12n on XHTML 1.1 and reinstate the legacy name

I want to use XHTML 1.1 do *be* strict.
If I want legacy features, I won't use XHTML 1.1.
Björn Höhrmann { }
am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 {
25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 }

Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 20:01:20 UTC