Posted by Richard Sexton on 02/14/06 02:11
In article <1139843844.514903.57370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>I was saddened to bump into both of these today. Although they take
>quite contradictory viewpoints (by the same person at the same
>conference!) they both struck me as deserving of the Golden Clueiron
>award (and this isn't a good thing)
>
>Why we need HTML 5 (Edd Dumbill)
>http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-futhtml1/
>
>Why we need XHTML 2.0 (Edd Dumbill)
>http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-futhtml2.html?ca=dgr-lnxw03XHTML2
>
>
>Now if anyone wants to talk about where XHTML 1.2 should go, then I'm
>all ears. Even XForms! Sensible development is a good thing. But XHTML
>2.0 is a smoking foot-stump of a bad idea and HTML 5 is just a few egos
>throwing their toys out of the pram.
>
>Anyone else care to comment?
"Noalias must go. This is not negotiable" - dmr ;-)
I just LOVE standards.
--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home page: http://rs79.vrx.net
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|