XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
david at megginson.com
Thu Nov 4 15:35:23 GMT 1999
David Brownell <david-b at pacbell.net> writes:
> > Curt Arnold sez:
> > > Namespace free XHTML would be fine with me.
> Although I certainly suggested that at one point, I think _one_ is the
> preferable outcome, and the motivation for _zero_ namespaces would only
> have been to get XHTML out quicker than it appears can now happen.
Further to this point, the members' responses to the director are
confidential -- even those of us on W3C committees don't get to see
them -- but from what some members have told me unofficially, an XHTML
spec with zero Namespaces will not be any more successful than an
XHTML spec with three.
All the best,
David Megginson david at 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;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev