XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG

[David Megginson]

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

-- 
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)