I'll make you a deal: you talk to the W3C and get them to drop this completely and utterly bass-ackward broken idea of creating new non-XML flavors of HTML, and I'll talk to the XML folks about dropping the DOCTYPE requirement.
Tell me you're not serious about W3C creating any new non-XML based versions of HTML!!! At least I assume they'll be smart enough not to create any non-namespaced ones.... When you go into a site that's still using 1997-or-earlier non-namespaced versions of HTML it's almost impossible to fix their HTML code - and cost-prohibitive to them... in most cases it's just as costly as rewriting the whole site, and so they just keep trying to "fix" the old code.
When the HTML code is namespaced () it's a simple matter of adding an "xml-stylesheet" processing instruction - and much, much less costly.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll make you a deal: you talk to the W3C and get them to drop this completely and utterly bass-ackward broken idea of creating new non-XML flavors of HTML, and I'll talk to the XML folks about dropping the DOCTYPE requirement.
Tell me you're not serious about W3C creating any new non-XML based versions of HTML!!! At least I assume they'll be smart enough not to create any non-namespaced ones.... When you go into a site that's still using 1997-or-earlier non-namespaced versions of HTML it's almost impossible to fix their HTML code - and cost-prohibitive to them... in most cases it's just as costly as rewriting the whole site, and so they just keep trying to "fix" the old code.When the HTML code is namespaced () it's a simple matter of adding an "xml-stylesheet" processing instruction - and much, much less costly.