• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 14:17:55 -0400
• In-reply-to: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621EC7@r...>

At 09:20 AM 8/6/2002 -0700, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, does anyone else wonder why there is an XHTML 2.0 
>when XHTML 1.0 doesn't seem to have caught on? Anyone involved with it 
>care to chime in?

Maybe they're hoping that Microsoft will takes steps to recognize and 
possibly even implement a 2.0?  That 1.0 and 1.1 were just too low a 
version number?

1.0 and 1.1 were pretty much just codifications of existing HTML 4.0 
practice redone using XML syntax.  2.0 should be a big step forward from that.

Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• References:
  • RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Word and XML was RE: XML APIs - What's next?
• Next by Date: Dynamic validation
• Previous by thread: RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
• Next by thread: RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread