- From: Russell O'Connor <roconnor@math.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 02:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
- To: <www-talk@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Sean B. Palmer wrote: > > I don't like XHTML. > > Please back up assertions with reasoning... i.e. please give us at > least *one* good reason why XHTML 1.0 is any worse than HTML 4.01. My dislike of XHTML is independent of signing web resources. Whatever method I would use to certify that I am the creator of a GIF image, or a text file I would imagine would work equally well with an HTML 4.0 file. So clearly I don't need switch to XHTML. Bringing XHTML into the picture is irrelevant. But if you must know: First, I see little advantage in using XML over SGML. Exclusions don't exist in XML, so nested A elements are unfortunately valid XHTML. XHTML is the beginning of the migration towards namespaces, and schemes which are inferior to architectural forms, if for no other reason than that arch. forms are an international standard. There you have *two* good reasons, but this is irrelevant. Any document on the web should be signable, therefore HTML 4.0 or HTML 2.0 or ASCII text should be signable. - -- Russell O'Connor roconnor@math.berkeley.edu <http://www.math.berkeley.edu/~roconnor/> ``Paradoxically, a refusal to `put a monetary value on life' means that life is often undervalued.'' -- Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (SunOS) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6ztmwZG3em5NXM14RAoliAKDVKrLjSWyL47P6x/B/rHG50kDtOQCgrXA6 xvch0Abs8+uuGr+KUqiQ9co= =74fJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Saturday, 7 April 2001 05:11:19 UTC