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

RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published

• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 14:27:39 -0400
• In-reply-to: <4.2.0.58.20020806141623.025e44c0@p...>
• References: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621EC7@r... d.corp.microsoft.com>

At 02:17 PM 8/6/2002 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>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.


While development hasn't been based on the hope of one company or another 
supporting the technology,
I personally think that Microsoft's insistence that they don't support 
XHTML 1.0 is quite silly (for long argued issues about MIME types and 
cracking documents, etc.

The premise of the question, I believe, is actually faulty -- it assumes 
XHTML 1.0 hasn't caught on, and I don't believe that's the case.

Even if that assertion were to remain debated, as Simon says, XHTML 2.0 
moves away from any attempts at backward compatibility, leaving it free to 
accomplish so much more moving forward.

Ann

• References:
  • RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Tags and Types (was Re: Re: maps)
• Next by Date: RE: CDATA strangeness
• Previous by thread: RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
• Next by thread: RE: W3C XFrames - first public WD published
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread