ATTN: Please comment on XHTML (before it's too late)

Tim Bray tbray at
Mon Aug 30 00:43:25 BST 1999

At 06:19 PM 8/29/99 -0400, Ann Navarro wrote:
>But again, let's get back to the issue at hand: is XHTML 1.0 something that 
>should go to Rec.

It's obvious that XHTML 1.0 is a good idea - the notion that you can send
along a package of tags that are known to be readable by a fast lightweight
XML parser, but carry the widely-known HTML semantics, is an unambiguous
good thing, and the HTML WG has done well in designing it.

The gripe is with this silly 3-namespace notion, which materially decreases
the utility of XHTML and establishes a violently dangerous precedent.  If
I were a voting member of the W3C advisory council, which I'm not, I'd
vote to send it back to the WG to fix the namespace breakage, and once
fixed, I'd vote to make it a W3C recommendation. -Tim

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list