There, that got your attention. In case anyone here hasn't seen this yet, if you have any interest in XHTML 2.0, Mark Pilgrim's frank comments are worth a read: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/01/13.html#semantic_obsolescence After having had my own misgivings about the goals[1] and certainly some of the specifics[2] of XHTML2, and having first read Daniel's post[3], and now Mark's, I think there needs to be a serious reconsideration of XHTML2 as an effort at all. I'd rather see efforts spent on HTML4/XHTML1,1.1,Basic errata and test suites. All of these will provide immediate clear value to the HTML community. In addition I think there is value in profiling SVG and SMIL for integration with XHTML Basic. Disclaimer: I am Microsoft's representative to, and participate in, the HTML working group. Tantek [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/05/html/charter "XHTML 2.0, the next generation of XHTML whose design goal is to use generic XML technologies as much as possible." [2] XHTML2.0 dumps harmless elements which folks have found semantically useful. It also dumps the extremely useful 'style' attribute which is critical for certain applications. [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2002Dec/0113.html And for anyone who was offended by the title of this post, please read this: http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html Now, back to your regularly scheduled DTD vs. Schema discussion.Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 05:40:41 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:54 GMT