Re: Signing Document and PICS

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

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                 
``Paradoxically, a refusal to `put a monetary value on life' means that
life is often undervalued.'' -- Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach

Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (SunOS)
Comment: For info see


Received on Saturday, 7 April 2001 05:11:19 UTC