Welcome to WebHeadStart.org

Web Technologies

Sponsored By

WebHeadStart.org is currently in beta.
Please pardon our appearance as we work to provide you with the most comprehensive reference on today's web technologies.

Interested in advertising on WebHeadStart? Become an advertising partner today!

[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date]

Re: <spoiler> element

From: Oskar Welzl <lists@welzl.info>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:21:32 +0100
To: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
Cc: Devin Bayer <devin@freeshell.org>, Jeremy Rand <jeremy@asofok.org>, www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <1134328892.11965.25.camel@erde.hormayrgasse>

reffering to "those out there who don't understand why HTML is even
being converted to XHTML", we might as well take a break and ask
ourselves why xhtml is being converted to xhtml 2.0.
i dont see people voting for it with their feet, as david put it (in a
different context) in his mail on dec 9th ... ;-)

Am Freitag, den 09.12.2005, 23:12 -0500 schrieb Kelly Miller:
> I wouldn't care about having to add the XLink attributes either (I tend 
> to do a lot of copy/pasting if I have to use the same tags/attributes 
> over and over again); I'm referring to those out there who don't 
> understand why HTML is even being converted to XHTML (and there were a 
> lot of them in the HTML class I just took) and would definitely balk at 
> having to write xlink:type="simple" every time they would have to create 
> a link.  That's not even mentioning the number of such websites that 
> claim to be XHTML but lack both the XML prolog and the xmlns attribute.  
> The former there is a good reason for forgetting, but why forget the latter?
> 
> It seems to me there's currently an understanding issue when it comes to 
> XML Namespaces.
> 
> Oskar Welzl wrote:
> 
> >There are various opinions on this topic; me, myself and I all would
> >happily add xlink:type="simple" if, in return, we'd get
> >xlink:type="extended" and external linkbases. If, in return, we'd use
> >standards in XHTML, rather than home-brew proprietary solutions; the
> >same standards that are used in Open Document, SVG, XTM, XBRL...
> >Maybe it's more verbose than people are used to, maybe extended links
> >and external linkbases are more difficult to implement - but: hey, they
> >are hoping for UAs to deal with the Metainformation Attributes Module as
> >well, aren't they? 
> >
> >But, as I said earlier: This topic is probably dead as can be, google
> >for "xlink xhtml" and you'll find everything has been said and done.
> >(I like these hopeless cases, though; anybody for a new "@hreflang in
> >XHTML2"-thread? I still believe Anne got it all wrong in
> >http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/06/hreflang-and-type  ;-)...)
> >
> >Oskar
> >  
> >
> 
Received on Sunday, 11 December 2005 19:21:15 GMT
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | WebHeadStart.org © 2005 All Rights Reserved.