David Dorward wrote: > Geoff Pack wrote: > > Yes, for now. But wouldn't it be easier for all us if the browsers > > just improved their handling of xml, instead of worrying about html5
> > and xhtml2? > No, since HTML expresses known semantics and random-XML doesn't. Surely the semantic meaning is in the actual tag names, not just the fact that they are standardised. It shouldn't matter as long as it's understandable. Anyway, you can always re-use as many of the HTML tags as you want, and make up your own when you need to. > While you can style it, there are more clients then those which are > visual. You can add multiple CSS stylesheets to an XML document, just like HTML. Or use can use XSL and transfrom the document into an HTML file with multiple CSS stylesheets. I'm not an expert at any of this, btw. What do XHTML2 and HTML5 give us that we can't do with XML and CSS? cheers, Geoff ============================================================================== The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments ============================================================================== ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
