|
|
Re: [xml-dev] What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 20/11/2002 15:07:58 GMT Standard Time, simonstl@simonstl.com writes:
AndrewWatt2000@aol.com writes:
>I will simply observe that your response totally lacks any logical
>argument to support the supposition that XHTML 2.0 is a good idea or
>that it is relevant in the changing world which will soon be upon us.
You appear to come from a community of thought which has no interest
whatsoever in the continuation of HTML. Why exactly do you insist on
obstructing that continuation when there is another community that does
stand to benefit?
This is very mysterious to me. I'm well-known for expressing my
negative opinions freely, but I don't go out of my way to contest things
which arguably have no effect on my particular interests.
Simon,
Again I am surprised by the lack of precision in your thought.
Nothing I have suggested is inconsistent with *HTML* having a future.
I don't view XHTML 2.0 as "HTML".
IE6 and below, Mozilla 1.x and below, Opera 7.x and below etc etc will continue to support *HTML*. I don't see that there is any realistic threat to HTML.
Andrew Watt
"XHTML 2.0 - the W3C leading the Web to its full potential ... to implement yesterday's technology tomorrow"
|
|
|
|
|
|