- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:53:08 -0600
- To: Molte <molte93@gmail.com>
- CC: Peter Krantz <peter.krantz@gmail.com>, HTML Working Group Discussion Mailing-List <www-html@w3.org>
We fully expect both to be W3C Recommendations. They address different needs and have different schedules. Molte wrote: > Are you saying that both might be W3C Recommendations? > > Should we not only have one standard to show web pages on the web? > Isn't it the reason for a standard? > > 2009/1/5 Peter Krantz <peter.krantz@gmail.com > <mailto:peter.krantz@gmail.com>> > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 17:25, Molte <molte93@gmail.com > <mailto:molte93@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > But as I said, I still believe it is stupid to develop them both > when only > > one of them is going to be used; > > I am not sure only one of them will be used. XHTML 2 is a generic > document language which may become a foundation for document-centric > apps that need an unambiguous way to include domain-specific data (via > RDFa). You may not see a lot of it on the open web, but it may well be > used a lot in specific technology domains. > > So, maybe there will be a place for both? > > Regards, > > Peter > > > > > -- > Molte > > CosSinCalc > http://cossincalc.com -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Monday, 5 January 2009 17:53:51 UTC