- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:16:13 -0400
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- CC: 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, 'Steven Pemberton' <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
Richard Ishida wrote: > Hi fantasai, > > Thanks for coming back on that point, which got overlooked during the last > rewrite. > > I have changed the text at > http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-bidi-css-markup.en.php#xhtml to > clearly reflect the expectation that the HTML semantics are used for XHTML > 1.0 served as application/xhtml+xml. > > I have not mentioned the namespace question, though my inclination is to > agree with Bert on that (thanks Bert). If XHTML semantics are not associated with XHTML-namespaced elements in generic XML, then I believe CDF has a problem to solve. That should just work: that's the whole *point* of having namespaces. Looking at XHTML1:3.2, I think Bert's interpretation is wrong and Christopher Strobbe's interpretation is correct. That statement basically says that 'name' attributes on <a> elements shall not be recognized as fragment identifiers. It is not saying that XHTML sent as XML should lose all its semantics. At least that is my interpretation; I invite Steven Pemberton to clarify the original intent of that quote. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2007 14:16:32 UTC