Re: The HTML Element

--- Robin Lionheart <> wrote:
> AH> Like I said, unless you come up with some actual
> *reason* or *purpose*
> AH> for changing the name of the root element, it is
> only a novelty. If a
> AH> web developer needs a root element to tell him
> he's writing XHTML,
> AH> then I think he needs to go read a few more
> tutorials.
> When XHTML 2.0 comes out, the MIME type
> application/xhtml+xml will
> correspond to two formats, XHTML 1.x which is HTML
> 4.0 based, and a
> substantially different HTML variant.
> <xhtml> tells user agents that this is not your
> father's <html>, prepare for
> a document divided into <section>s and <h>s, for a
> document where every
> element can have href and src attributes, that we're
> going to a foreign land
> where <meta> isn't an empty tag but a container.
> The DOCTYPE won't be XHTML 2.0's when it's an XHTML
> document
> embedded in another XML format like SVG.

Shouldn't the namespace be the trigger for parsing as
XHTML 2 instead of XHTML 1.x ?

> If we're not going to be backward compatible with
> what <html> normally
> signifies, it's safer and saner to change the root
> tag to <xhtml>. Otherwise
> naive user agents that don't look at namespaces may
> try to make sense of it
> as if it were HTML.

I don't care very much about wether it's <html> or
<xhtml> though it'd be more logical to use <xhtml>.
It's just the reason you gave above doesn't really
to be a very good reason...

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 03:03:55 UTC