Brett Patterson wrote: >>From what I have read so far, you are pretty much agreeing with me.
It depends on how you define "language". > Hence, David, you said and I quote, "HTML 5 is "Everything you need to > know to build a browser" with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL > and HTTP in it.", therefore, HTML5 (not to be confused with xHTML or > XHTML), is being phased out. No. HTML5 is being phased in. > It would have to be, especially considering > the previous statement. If they are including some definition of HTML > with XHTML, then they are trying to get HTML designers used to using the > simplistical form of XHTML in XML syntax/serialisation/yada yada yada > whatever, correct? No. They are recognising that some people want to use XML syntax and catering to them. > SQL is a database manipulation language is it not? Yes. > Like XML? Nothing like XML. > So, all in all, HTML developers will move more into what the > "purpose" of XHTML is, correct? No. > And it would have to unify the schism if > it is to include all of the above stated, is that not right? No. XHTML 2 is going to be a significantly different language. -- David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/> ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
