- From: Lachlan Hunt <lhunt07@postoffice.csu.edu.au>
- Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 00:48:39 +1100
- To: www-html@w3.org
David Woolley wrote: >> Why shouldn't UAs have knowledge of the XHTML DTD? If a DOCTYPE is >>specified, then isn't it a requirement of XML that the document >> >> > >Firstly I believe that they should, but there is a lobby, particularly >on the www-css list, that takes the view that browsers should purely >apply CSS to XML. My impression is that the person to whom I wrote the >long response about the semantic web, etc., belongs to that lobby. > Totally agree with you on that point! If the whole point of browsers, and the web was purely to make pages look *pretty*, then, as I understand their view, having presentation elements in XHTML would be completely acceptable, since presentational elements are just XML tags with default CSS renderings. Or, what about: lets just replace everything with <div class="xxx"> and <span class="yyy">, since in their opinion semantics are irrelevant. (of course, I'm being sarcastic about this, it's just hard to portray that meaning in text, without some kind of <sarcasm> tag. So, please no replies about what a stupid idea that would be) >One particular characteristic of that lobby is that they reject the >idea that there should be any named character entities other than the >four (?) in the XML specification itself. > I'm neutral on the character entity argument, I haven't read the reasons pros and cons for that yet.. CYA ...Lachy
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2003 08:52:34 UTC