[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG

• From: "Don Park" <donpark@d...>
• To: "'xml-dev'" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:47:41 -0800

><html:table><html:title/></html:table>
>
>And thanks to the one line spec, this is now legal. What the 

There is an arguable common sense when we refer to a document as
'HTMLish' and I believe your example violates that.  If people are
going to abuse namespace like that, it is our job to knock some
sense into them rather than wrap them up in diapers and ducktape
everything with foams.  IMHO, I must say.

Best,

Don Park    -   mailto:donpark@d...
Docuverse   -   http://www.docuverse.com


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML as a top-level media type (was Re: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG)
• Next by Date: RE: XSL Parser
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
• Next by thread: Re: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread