3 ms·
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
by ssmoot 13y 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.
- mcv 13y agoXHTML is on the way out, I'm afraid. Angular is designed for HTML5.
- coldtea 13y ago>That seems like a poor reimplementation of XML namespaces 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.