|
|
|
|
|
by ssmoot
4478 days ago
|
|
That seems like a poor reimplementation of XML namespaces. Why not use XHTML at that point? If XHTML ever had a clear mission statement in life it was that. I mean I thought XHTML was a curse a few years ago when it was The Thing Every Good Designer Uses™ since it couldn't be rendered as XML in the most popular browser. But hopefully that's not as much an issue anymore. Or maybe it is. I haven't kept up with IE. |
|
Or you know, an adoption of only the needed part, instead of all the BS junk that comes with XML namespaces.
>Why not use XHTML at that point?
Because of all the other junk that comes with it. And because it comes from W3C.