Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
I started to write a response to this, but...I absolutely don't understand the gist here. I think that the OP thinks that simply because you can NAME an element in HTML, something like ARTICLE, that's somehow "better" than having "p.article" and p class="article" (respectively) in CSS and HTML.
|
It *is* true that a named element is more standardized than an arbitrary id.
But I doubt both the need and the practical adoption of it.
Quote:
|
The point here completely eludes me. For XML, 99% of the time, you have to transform it with XSL, etc., into XHTML, in the first place. So...what's the advantage? Exactly?
|
I dunno, XML is cooler I guess? Saying XHTML and HTML5 is obsolete already tells me that that this whole thread is just a lot of navel gazing.
Quote:
P.S.: @eschwartz: yeah, I'm with you on this one. I think the real problem is a lack of usage; but I'm always open to new ideas, if a better format can be created, sold, bought, and implemented.
Hitch
|
