|
|
Re: [xml-dev] What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 20/11/2002 16:19:13 GMT Standard Time, ann@webgeek.com writes:
Well, if there's no flamage to be found here, we'll just go dig it up
elsewhere, apparently:
'Andrew Watt
"XHTML 2.0 - the W3C leading the Web to its full potential ... to implement
yesterday's technology tomorrow"'
Hi Ann,
If you have been following this thread I hope you will have progressed to a realisation that the question about the wisdom of further development of XHTML by W3C is a serious one.
I guess you will have noticed that both Len and Paul are open minded about whether or not XHTML is the way forward.
That tends to support my viewpoint that it is not axiomatic that further development of XHTML is a wise use of limited W3C resources.
Since others have asked me to clarify my views I will shortly post "The non-future of XHTML x.x" which covers some practical issues. It introduces the concept of anticipated "user agent turmoil" which I perceive as changing the context in which possible development of XHTML 2.0 might take place.
I hope you and other members of the HTML [sic] Working Group will be able to find some arguments in support of XHTML 2.0.
Andrew Watt
"XHTML 2.0 - the W3C leading the Web to its full potential ... to implement yesterday's technology tomorrow"
|
|
|
|
|
|