Mike Schinkel wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I'll name the difference of XHTML_all and XHTML_compatible as
XHTML_incompatible. Lachlan gave examples that indicate that
XHTML_incompatible is not empty.
I'm sorry but may I please ask for a reference? I unfortunately don't
know where to find that needle in the haystack. Or did you mean Ian
Hickson?: http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
No, he meant the list of examples that demonstrate the kinds of errors
millions of authors make when attempting to use XHTML as text/html.
http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-December/008272.html
FWIW, that list was based on this old article of mine which has a lot
more information and discussion in it.
http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/12/xhtml-beginners
This means that you lose any benefits that hinge on you only having
to ensure targeting XHTML_all.
That benefit is so huge it can't even be easily calculated.
What benefits are there and what makes them so huge?
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In that email you wrote:
"My point is that the whole idea of embedding
XML in HTML is nonsense and should have no
part in any transition from HTML to XML. I'll be
explaining this last point more in a future post."
Have you written that post yet, and if so may I have the reference?
http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
