[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 2:21 PM -0700 9/17/02, Ann Navarro wrote:
>At 02:09 PM 9/17/2002 -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>>The why define XHTML 2.0 at all? Why not just use raw XML?
>
>Why use any agreed upon XML vocabulary? Why not just use raw XML all the time?
>
Wee're running in circles. Now we're back to where I was before. If
XHTML has a agreed upon vocabulary, let's use it to tell us which
elements are links and how they behave. What's wrong with that? I
really don't understand your point.
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| XML in a Nutshell, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly, 2002) |
| http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian2/ |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0596002920/cafeaulaitA/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
