• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>
• Date: 19 Aug 2002 23:57:12 +0200
• In-reply-to: <r01050300-1015-17D22988B37F11D69F470003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>
• References: <r01050300-1015-17D22988B37F11D69F470003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>
• Sender: larsga@p...
• User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1

* Simon St Laurent
| 
| I worry about RDF (and URIs generally) poisoning XML, 

How would it do that? As far as I can tell the two are entirely
separate, except that one of the RDF syntaxes is based on XML.

| [...] So far, I think XHTML has chosen carefully and avoided the
| really toxic bits.

Quite possibly. Personally, I would have been happier if they had not
only changed frames, but also fixed the most broken aspects of them.
Pages should ask to be wrapped in framesets, not the other way around.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: "Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)" <mbatsis@h...>

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: linking, 80/20
• Next by Date: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• Next by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread