5 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
> >
> > OK, I changed it -- but here are some of the points that made me
> > think that `html' is the right choice:
>
> Here's one more (and IMHO more significant) point: XHTML is on the
> way out as a web technology. In particular, HTML5 is treating the
> whole HTML-in-XML idea as mostly failed and continuing without
> paying it much attention. For more details, see:
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/#syntax
> and
> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/HTML_vs._XHTML
[Wait -- you mean that xhtml is the following standard to html4, but
then the even newer html5 dumps all that work and re-starts from html4
with artificial compatibility to xhmlt?? What kind of twisted
standard does that make??]
In any case, that sounds like it will be desirable to move it back to
`html' in the not-so-far future, and then renaming the new collection
will make even less sense. Sounds like I should go back to `html'
then.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
