 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date] Re: [Structure Module] Renaming the <html> element to more semantic name
From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@tigerstaden.no>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:39:35 +0100 To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, XHTML-Liste <www-html@w3.org> Message-id: <op.s1eqf9k416f2qb@quark.hv1alan> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:52:28 +0100, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote: > Spelled words are empty and the element "document" has not more sense > than element "html" (specifically after 15 years of history by a social > group). So, basically, the <html> element should stay for historical reasons? Isn't XHTML 2.0 supposed to be breaking most of this history and not be backward-compatible anyway? Why does the 15 years of history with <html> apply to XHTML 2.0 if none of the other (excuse my language) rubbish from older HTML specifications doesn't? -- Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- http://virtuelvis.com/quark/ «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2005 09:38:33 GMT |
|
||||||||||||||||
