- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:36:24 +0900
- To: "Peter Krantz" <peter.krantz@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
Le 23 août 06 à 14:59, Peter Krantz a écrit :
> On 8/22/06, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
>> Which still doesn't answer the thread starter: why are samp, kbd
>> and var
>> specifically still in this basic grammar, when they only refer to
>> specialised types of content in a particular field?
>>
>
> I am also interested in knowing why these are still around in XHTML 2.
> I can understand why they were passed onto XHTML 1, but now is the
> first real chance to remove old stuff as XHTML 2 doesn't have to be
> backward compatible.
>
> I will be using XHTML 2 as the base for a document standard in a
> specific field and the extensibility makes it easy to add my
> domain-specific markup (or use RDF with SKOS to express what I need).
> So I see no reason why XHTML 2 should conatin domain-specific markup
> at all.
>
> code and blockcode are also candidates for removal in my opinion.
+1 See the issue here which is exactly what you are proposing.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2006JulSep/0121
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 06:37:09 UTC