why distinctions within XHTML?

[Mark Birbeck]

But it CAN be mixed with other vocabularies!!! It just can't be
validated.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hunter, David [mailto:dhunter at Mobility.com]
> Sent: 02 September 1999 22:53
> To: XML-Dev Mailing list
> Subject: RE: why distinctions within XHTML?
> 
> 
> > From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul at prescod.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 4:26 PM
> > 
> > David Brownell wrote:
> > > 
> > > The current "10% solution" (three namespace URIs) is IMNSHO 
> > the wrong
> > > tack -- either don't address it at all, or hold out for a complete
> > > solution, but don't put something in that's widely 
> > perceived as broken
> > > and is universally acknowledged as incomplete!
> > 
> > I agree and I would feel the same about a single namespace. We don't
> > need no steekin namespaces (yet!).
> 
> I agree as well.  While I feel that having a single universal XHTML
> namespace is a really good thing, it isn't actually needed 
> until XHTML can
> be mixed with other XML vocabularies, so I'd be more than 
> happy to leave it
> out until such time as that's feasible.
> 
> 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 (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
> (un)subscribe 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)
> 

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 (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe 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)