XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG

[David Megginson]

"Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin at mitretek.org> writes:

> It seems to me that using one of the (3 - or is it to be 1?) xhtml
> namespaces could basically have three reasons.  The other posts are
> of course talking about them, but I thought I'd just condense them
> together in one place.

[snip]

None of those points looks very familiar to me, and they certainly
have not come up much in discussions.  I hear two main arguments for
HTML Namespaces:

1. To allow processors to distinguish non-HTML markup in HTML
   documents (text/html); and

2. To allow processors to distinguish HTML markup in general XML
   documents (text/xml).

I care most about (2), but others care more about (1).  They both boil 
down to the ability to make an HTML/not-HTML distinction easily.


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)