 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date] Re: The HTML Element
From: Robin Lionheart <w3c-ml@robinlionheart.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:45:06 -0400 Message-ID: <01b901c33f50$ec9817f0$117de518@lionsden> To: <www-html@w3.org> AH> Like I said, unless you come up with some actual *reason* or *purpose* AH> for changing the name of the root element, it is only a novelty. If a AH> web developer needs a root element to tell him he's writing XHTML, AH> then I think he needs to go read a few more tutorials. When XHTML 2.0 comes out, the MIME type application/xhtml+xml will correspond to two formats, XHTML 1.x which is HTML 4.0 based, and a substantially different HTML variant. <xhtml> tells user agents that this is not your father's <html>, prepare for a document divided into <section>s and <h>s, for a document where every element can have href and src attributes, that we're going to a foreign land where <meta> isn't an empty tag but a container. The DOCTYPE won't be XHTML 2.0's when it's an XHTML document embedded in another XML format like SVG. If we're not going to be backward compatible with what <html> normally signifies, it's safer and saner to change the root tag to <xhtml>. Otherwise naive user agents that don't look at namespaces may try to make sense of it as if it were HTML.Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 17:41:55 GMT |
|
||||||||||||||||
