[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Plan B+1 = Plan C+1
- From: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 17:29:17 -0500
Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> Remembering that my proposal is a melding of Jonathan and Tim's, I have
> updated it to use a resource element instead of div:-
Sean, I can't connect to this, perhaps you've been /.'d ? :-)
> I believe that the semantics of <link> are too well known and used to just
> ignore, so we're going to have to keep them, surely (then HTML processors
> can be modified). Basically, it's the same proposal, I just changed div to
> xncl:resource :-)
> Jonathan: maybe it would be better if you just made these changes to your
> proposal for continuity, but I still don't like the fact that:-
> a. You don't use the XHTML namespace
Right, that's because I'm changing the DTD, so to be consistent to what we
are proposing I'm using the namespace http://www.openhealth.org/XMLCatalog/
, and the document obtained by dereferencing this namespace URI is in fact
an XML Namespace Catalog.
It turns out that browsers ignore the html namespace. By creating a document
using a namespace http://www.w3.org/tr/xhtml-basic I assume that the
document 'conforms' to what is dereferenced at this namespace, namely the
XHTML Basic 1.0 W3C REC. Since we are modifying this spec, we assign a new
> b. You don't use xhtml:type when you could do.
> Easily fixable of course!
I'm not understanding, what is "xhtml:type"?