News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Angular 2.0. Parent comment

Re:Angular 2.0 by ssmoot on Tuesday March 18, 2014 @09:50PM (#7426361)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Angular 2.0 by coldtea on Thursday March 20, 2014 @08:11PM (#7439819)
>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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Angular 2.0 by mcv on Thursday March 20, 2014 @07:12AM (#7434838)
XHTML is on the way out, I'm afraid. Angular is designed for HTML5.
[ Parent | on HN ]