- From: Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 10:12:26 -0400
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
- Cc: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
At 05:04 PM 10/8/2002 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >On Friday, October 4, 2002, at 06:43 PM, Ann Navarro wrote: >>At 03:20 PM 10/4/2002 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> >>>That is the only reason why anyone would want an XHTML 2.0 -- because they >>>can pre-code the DTD and default stylesheet if it is a standard format. >> >>The *only* reason someone would want an XHTML 2.0 is to be able to hard >>code semantics? > >Yes, because that is the only difference between ad-hoc XML and a >standardized language within XML. HTML is SGML with a pre-coded DTD >and default stylesheet. XHTML is XML with a pre-coded DTD and default >stylesheet. XHTML happens to have a DTD, but that shouldn't make it some special case in the corner, lots of XML has DTDs. >>I can't be anything other than flabbergasted at such a suggestion. > >Unfortunately, I am not surprised that folks seem to have forgotten the >very basis of the technology that is being defined. I was flabbergasted >when someone told me that XHTML 2.0 would not be backwards compatible >with HTML, since that is the only reason I use XHTML 1. It seems very clear that there's a disconnect between what the TAG thinks the HTML WG has been chartered to produce and what the WG thinks it's been chartered to produce and has been working on for the past few years. If it's not clear to TAG what the WG is doing, then any opinions expressed are going to be based on misinformation or improper assumptions. Perhaps that needs to be clarified first. Our aims are clearly documented in the appropriate portions of the W3C web site. Ann ----- Ann Navarro, WebGeek, Inc. http://www.webgeek.com say what? http://www.snorf.net/blog
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2002 10:14:33 UTC