why distinctions within XHTML?

[Ann Navarro]

At 04:43 PM 9/7/99 -0600, roddey at us.ibm.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>Somebody did the basic math in a comment:  three variants of XHTML will
>>very quickly add an order of magnitude to the complexity of the systems
>>built with it.  That's a deterrent to the use of XHTML, and discards the
>>simplification that's long been at the core of the XML movement.
>>
>
>Does not the 'X' in XHTML pretty much mean that technically there should
be no
>'non-strict' version? I mean if its HTML, its HTML. But, if its XML, then it
>needs to be well formed XML.

Nothing in the transitional and frameset flavors of XHTML 1.0 equate to not
being well formed. 

If I correctly understand that to be your concern, it appears to not be an
issue. 

Ann
---

Author of Effective Web Design: Master the Essentials
Coming in September --- Mastering XML

Founder, WebGeek Communications            http://www.webgeek.com
Vice President-Finance, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org
Director, HWG Online Education             http://www.hwg.org/services/classes





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)