Isn't XHTML2 the one being endorsed by W3C and not HTML5? HTML5 is being formulated at WHATWG, AFAIK,
On 2/8/07, Barney Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am a bigger fan of XHTML 2, from what I have seen - it seems to me more like a sober re-design of HTML with the benefit of hindsight. HTML 5, on the other hand, seems to be more about making a huge list of specific elements to tag on to HTML. Of course, the problem is that the full potential of XHTML 2 wouldn't be backward compatible - while HTML 5 would simply have loads of convoluted objects that might not render. To bring back the dead horse, it seems to me that HTML 5 would completely re-legitimise <HR/>, probably along with <PICTURE OF A BLACK DOG> and <THAT BIT AT THE TOP OF MY PAGE>. I'm exaggerating, but I'm very cynical of the notion of just adding specifics. Of course, I suppose it was people with this kind of mindset who over saw the genocide of tables, and other objects with highly specific properties. How much is there to gain from things like <CALENDAR>? Should we be complicating things, or simplifying them? At the end of the day it's pretty moot because HTML 5 is W3 and Microsoft endorsed, and XHTML isn't. Regards, Barney ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
-- Aja Lorenzo T Lapus : Freelance Web Developer Home / Web log : http://www.ajalapus.com/ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
