Might be of interest...
--- Forwarded message ---
From: Shane McCarron [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: www-html-editor@w3.org
Subject: Re: [xhtml-role] Extensibility of XHTML 1 and XHTML 1.1 (PR#9627)
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:01:25 +0200
XHTML2 will be using the same
Anne van Kesteren forwarded this from Shane McCarron:
XHTML2 will be using the same namespace as XHTML1, and there will not be
two modules.
Great news! I wonder how open the HTML WG will be with regards to
working with the WHATWG and HTML 5, especially now that the 2 specs will
share the
Anne van Kesteren forwarded this from Shane McCarron:
XHTML2 will be using the same namespace as XHTML1, and there will not be
two modules.
This has been an issue in the XHTML2 draft for some time:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/conformance.html#s_conform_issue_4
On 9/12/06, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL
Ian Hickson wrote:
I would be more concerned about how they are intending on making
XHTML2 compatible with XHTML1 than with the WHATWG work.
Hopefully they won't revive the |version| attribute, as John M. Boyer
has suggested.
For example,
XHTML2's input element has basically completely
On 9/12/06, Matthew Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example,
XHTML2's input element has basically completely different semantics
than XHTML1's.
That's because XHTML 2.0 simply reuses XForms in the XHTML namespace,
so the HTML WG isn't the place to debate this, unfortunately.
Yeah.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:14:26 +0200, Matthew Raymond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, why get rid of acronym? It's more widely supported than
abbr. Granted, it's sort of a subset of abbr, but acronyms are
common enough to justify their own element.
Actually, I agree with dropping acronym.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:51:53 +0200, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anne van Kesteren forwarded this from Shane McCarron:
XHTML2 will be using the same namespace as XHTML1, and there will not be
two modules.
This has been an issue in the XHTML2 draft for some time:
