• To: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>,Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:25:18 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <E17hGFw-0000Wo-00@m...>
• References: <Message from Mike Champion <mc@x...><GD1ZJE08C418252MKUQVHEZU53HBNK.3d57d70c@MChamp>

At 03:09 PM 8/20/2002 -0600, Uche Ogbuji wrote:

>Perhaps, but that's a different argument altogether.  My point is that if
>XHTML already uses namespaces (and thus introduces the "bewildering
>complexity" you suggest) isn't it strange to say that taking advantage of the
>point of namespaces (i.e. for embedding vocabularies) is burdensome?

<personal opinion, not representative of the WG>

XHTML uses namespaces because it has to. Just as any other spec produced 
these days has to.

Any blended mixed-namespace documents that use "XHTML" but are not 
conformant to either of the two definitions of a modularized XHTML 
language, are simply XML borrowing XHTML elements. It's not XHTML.

Ann
-----
Ann Navarro, WebGeek, Inc.
http://www.webgeek.com

say what? http://www.snorf.net/blog

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@j...>
  • global markup (was Re: XHTML 2.0, death of XLink)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: patterns vs. identifiers
• Next by Date: RE: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature of DOM
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Next by thread: global markup (was Re: XHTML 2.0, death of XLink)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread