|
|
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?
Ann
Ann,
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
|
|
|
|
|
|