[MAILER-DAEMON@nag.co.uk: Returned mail: User unknown]

[David Carlisle]

> Nothing in this issue, one or three, will so forever break XHTML

XML and HTML are clearly each unstoppable, so there will clearly be an
XML'ised version HTML. I didn't say that XHTML would break, but the
_project_ ie the control of the system by the W3C HTML WG might be
derailed. If the Recommendations are not workable (or if they fail to
become Recommendations) because of this one technical issue that seems
to me to be a real shame given the large amount of good work that has
clearly gone into the thing. As written I think the draft xhtml specs
are only really usable by XML 1.0 applications that are not namespace
aware. There is really nothing wrong with declaring xhtml to be
an application of XML 1.0 and not mentioning namespaces at all.
That would be preferable to the current proposal.

> This is where I tend to stop giving credence to arguments.
Sadly there isn't much evidence of the WG having given credence to any
of the arguments in the first place. The public rationale document
only really gives one claimed benefit which is fragment use, when
fragments are supposedly deferred to xhtml 1.1, and no explanation is
given as to why a versioning attribute would not solve that case just as
well (or better) than the namespace use proposed.

David

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)