XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG

[David Megginson]

"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl at simonstl.com> writes:

> >So XHTML needs a namespace, and the HTML WG is the correct group to assign 
> >it.  Whether they want to do it as part of the XHTML 1.0 spec or simply as
> >a 3-line W3C recommendation published separately makes little 
> >difference. -Tim
> 
> Except that the second route probably would have gotten XHTML 1.0 through
> without these hitches.  Technically, you're quite right.  Politically, I
> think this could have been easier.

I have customers who would invest a lot of time and energy in XHTML
right now, and who would integrate XHTML into other major industry
specs that will be too far along to mess with in another few months,
if the HTML WG would only publish a one-sentence NOTE that said

  The XML Namespace for HTML is http://www.w3.org/1999/11/HTML/ and
  all names are lower case.

(or whatever suits).  Really -- just give us a Namespace, and we'll
do stuff you barely dare to dream about.  That way, they can work on
XHTML itself, modules, and all that at leisure.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david at megginson.com
           http://www.megginson.com/

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