Wendell Piez wrote:
>
> There are also other ways of skinning this cat. You can decide that,
> XHTML being a "terminal format" not suitable for input to any process
> other than certain specified target applications (a known set of
> browsers), formal validation of XHTML doesn't matter as long as the
> browser does "the right thing" with ul/ol inside p. (Most browsers do.)
> While this might be controversial 

It is. It does not advance the web if we continue to rely on browsers
doing more-or-less-the-right-thing with commonly-encountered
situations. There *is* a point to getting XHTML better standardized;
and that includes schemas, to my mind.

Pragmatically, I believe we should accept the stupid limitations of
XHTML 1.1 and program around them, while supporting the development of a
better XHTML 2.0. In some ways, George Bina's solution is that we should
generate 2.0 now, and then dumb it down to 1.1 for a while.

-- 
Sebastian Rahtz

Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

OSS Watch: JISC Open Source Advisory Service
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk