[whatwg] Re: Is this introducing incompatibilities with future W3C work

[Anne van Kesteren (fora)]

>>The WHATWG principles are laid out here:
>>
>>  http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webapps-cdf-ws/papers/opera.html
> 
> So you're now conceding that this is an Opera thing, not 7 guys who
> don't recognise companies?  We've still not had any patent etc. info.

That is from Mozilla as well.


>>  * The core features of an XML vocabulary should require the use of
>>    elements from only one namespace.
> 
> You never really explained why this constraint existed, IE does
> support multiple namespaces (regardless of the legality in authoring
> such docs) so it's not based on an IE6 legacy requirement, which is
> what I understood the main motivation of WF2 was.

It is difficult for authors to use multiple namespaces. The became big, 
because of it's simplicity.


>>The net effect of these two points, both of which underpin all WHATWG
>>work, is that anything added to HTML4 must be added to XHTML1, and that
>>anything added to XHTML1 must not require namespaces to be used.
> 
> Rather depressing.  no-one's yet explained how HTML 4 and XHTML 1
> really create a migration path, could you explain now perhaps?

XHTML 1.0 is a XML formulation of HTML 4.01.


-- 
  Anne van Kesteren
  <http://annevankesteren.nl/>