i don't know why it seems so glaringly apparent to me that:
since HTML4 did not become XHTML4, but, rather, XHTML 1.0, HTML5 should
not become XHTML5, but, rather, XHTML 1.5
if there should be an HTML6, it would be XHTML 1.6
just my (continuously devaluing) 2 cents, american,
gregory
Dan Connolly wrote:
On the other hand, lots of people (yourself included) could
have changed it and, as far as I know, have not.
There would need to be some motivation, and that
would vary as the importance one ascribes to
world-writable media such as Wikipaedia. For
myself, I am willing
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 14:57 +, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote:
[...]
Very clever detective work! Fun stuff... I don't
have anything to add to the HTML WG discussion,
but as I say in my bio...
His research interest is investigating the value of formal descriptions
of complex systems like
: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:26:24 + (UTC)
To: Dan Connolly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: The only name for the xml serialisation of html5
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Dan Connolly wrote:
I'm interested to know what the editors (Ian, Dave) and other WG
members
think of those arguments
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Mark Birbeck wrote:
Something doesn't add up here...in your comments...in Ian's; it's almost
as if the aim is confusion.
Please don't confuse Dean's position for mine. If there's something that
doesn't add up in my comments, please do let me know; as far as I'm aware
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Dean Edridge wrote:
Perhaps you should suggest to the XHTML 2 working group (private, not
open to the public)
Actually the XHTML2 working group is as open as the HTML working group.
Anyone can join.
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/32107/instructions
--
Ian
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Dean Edridge wrote:
Perhaps you should suggest to the XHTML 2 working group (private, not
open to the public)
Actually the XHTML2 working group is as open as the HTML working group.
Anyone can join.
