- From: Oskar Welzl <lists@welzl.info>
- Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:21:32 +0100
- To: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
- Cc: Devin Bayer <devin@freeshell.org>, Jeremy Rand <jeremy@asofok.org>, www-html@w3.org
reffering to "those out there who don't understand why HTML is even being converted to XHTML", we might as well take a break and ask ourselves why xhtml is being converted to xhtml 2.0. i dont see people voting for it with their feet, as david put it (in a different context) in his mail on dec 9th ... ;-) Am Freitag, den 09.12.2005, 23:12 -0500 schrieb Kelly Miller: > I wouldn't care about having to add the XLink attributes either (I tend > to do a lot of copy/pasting if I have to use the same tags/attributes > over and over again); I'm referring to those out there who don't > understand why HTML is even being converted to XHTML (and there were a > lot of them in the HTML class I just took) and would definitely balk at > having to write xlink:type="simple" every time they would have to create > a link. That's not even mentioning the number of such websites that > claim to be XHTML but lack both the XML prolog and the xmlns attribute. > The former there is a good reason for forgetting, but why forget the latter? > > It seems to me there's currently an understanding issue when it comes to > XML Namespaces. > > Oskar Welzl wrote: > > >There are various opinions on this topic; me, myself and I all would > >happily add xlink:type="simple" if, in return, we'd get > >xlink:type="extended" and external linkbases. If, in return, we'd use > >standards in XHTML, rather than home-brew proprietary solutions; the > >same standards that are used in Open Document, SVG, XTM, XBRL... > >Maybe it's more verbose than people are used to, maybe extended links > >and external linkbases are more difficult to implement - but: hey, they > >are hoping for UAs to deal with the Metainformation Attributes Module as > >well, aren't they? > > > >But, as I said earlier: This topic is probably dead as can be, google > >for "xlink xhtml" and you'll find everything has been said and done. > >(I like these hopeless cases, though; anybody for a new "@hreflang in > >XHTML2"-thread? I still believe Anne got it all wrong in > >http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/06/hreflang-and-type ;-)...) > > > >Oskar > > > > >
Received on Sunday, 11 December 2005 19:21:15 UTC