• To: <AndrewWatt2000@a...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@j...>
• Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:38:56 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <168.1258827f.2a91e9b2@a...>

AndrewWatt2000@a... wrote:

> > XHTML 2.0 seems to be the one bright light amongst the 
> > maze of W3C specs currently in vogue. 

> Really??  Can you expound on why you believe XHTML 2.0 to 
> be a "bright light"?

What Simon said.

	http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200208/msg01173.html


I'll just add that simple functionality and common sense appear -- at
least temporarily -- to have triumphed over byzantine theological
imperatives.  :)


/Jelks

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...

• Prev by Date: RE: linking, 80/20
• Next by Date: Re: patterns vs. identifiers
• Previous by thread: What is this IDs/pattern rot?
• Next by thread: Re: RE: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread