[whatwg] Re: Is this introducing incompatibilities with future W3C work
Anne van Kesteren (fora)
fora at annevankesteren.nl
Thu Jun 24 05:14:07 PDT 2004
>>The WHATWG principles are laid out here:
> 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
More information about the whatwg