OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Is XHTML 2.0 already an Anachronism?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

In a message dated 17/09/2002 19:20:15 GMT Daylight Time, ann@webgeek.com writes:

[Elliotte Harrold]
>The why define XHTML 2.0 at all? Why not just use raw XML?
[Ann Navarro]
Why use any agreed upon XML vocabulary? Why not just use raw XML all the time?



Great question. Did the (X)HTML WG seriously ask it?

If backwards compatibility is explicitly not an aim for XHTML 2.0 then what reasons are there for persevering with further development of HTML?

Of course, at least some of the XLink vs HLink debate hinges on the assumption that further development of (X)HTML is a good thing.

Similarly, the XHTML-centricity of XForms is implicitly dependant on XHTML being worth further development. Why not better aim for a truly generic XML forms standard?

I would be interested in your views on why you consider that XHTML is worth persevering with.

Andrew Watt


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS