- From: Arthur Wiebe <webmaster@awiebe.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:31:22 -0400
- To: Simon Jessey <simon@jessey.net>, www-html@w3.org
Received on Sunday, 15 June 2003 20:31:29 UTC
Simon Jessey wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi> >Subject: Re: The HTML Element > > > >>>XHTML 1.0 has to use html to allow HTML user agents to use it. >>> >>> >>XHTML2 has no such limitation and could very well use "xhtml" as the >>root element GI. >> >> > > >I would argue that changing the root element to "xhtml" for XHTML 2.0 would >be an excellent idea, because it would help to discourage authors from >writing a mixture of HTML and XHTML 2.0. Such hybrid documents would be that >last thing we would want, as it would most likey lead to user agents that >would try to make sense of them. I see XHTML 2.0 very much as an alternative >to XHTML 1.0, indeed I would consider renaming it to avoid confusion. How >about HXML or HTXML or AML (as Jeffrey Zeldman suggested)? > >Simon Jessey > >w: http://jessey.net/blog/ >e: simon@jessey.net > > > > I'd say it should be xhtml. Not HXML, HTXML, or AML because it's XHTML. Using one of the others would be just like it being html in a sense. <Arthur/>
Received on Sunday, 15 June 2003 20:31:29 UTC