Re: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
WARNING: I may risk re-igniting the N-namespaces war by responding ... rev-bob@g... wrote: > > Curt Arnold sez: > > > Namespace free XHTML would be fine with me. Although I certainly suggested that at one point, I think _one_ is the preferable outcome, and the motivation for _zero_ namespaces would only have been to get XHTML out quicker than it appears can now happen. > Depends on what you mean by that; I see the dangerous potential there > of descending into the same morass we currently have with HTML, where > we theoretically go by the DTD, I never thought that HTML <!DOCTYPE ...> declarations were ever usable for any purpose other than content providers to validate, in order to work on more browsers. How could they be? I think that HotJava once tried to validate -- and gave up quickly because so many sites _only_ produce illegal HTML. > but in actuality, it's anybody's guess what browserisms a random > user agent will support. Witness the spotty support CSS1 and CSS2 have, > not to mention HTML4 itself. Namespaces are for distinguishing an XHTML "table" from furniture, not for nuancing IE4/Mac table browserisms (bugs) from NN4.61/Linux ones. Nobody wants to see one namespace per "browserism", with a W3C precedent in that space ... start with three "browserisms", and there will be hundreds of different XHTML namespaces in no time at all. Nobody will even bother to look at the namespaces if that's how it goes. > why > should we expect that the UAs we will have for XML will do any better? Better in what respect -- being less buggy? Two things come to mind: - One is that so many developers understand the damage that comes from HTML standards being so thoroughly ignored ... which wasn't widely understood as the damage was being created. XML has "draconian" error handling (no display if it's not well formed!), which is a big step forward (though it only goes so far). This means that users are already demanding (and getting) better standards conformance. It doesn't come easy to many vendors since an "Open" playing field doesn't provide customer lockin. - Another is that now we're seeing more alternatives, including some significant Open Source componentry (not just Mozilla). This means that vendors in the XML space won't be able to get away with as much. (Watch out for the tactics some will take to cope... some bits of XML will get needlessly complex, as entry barriers for the newer vendors and perhaps as homes for more "browserisms".) Surely there are other reasons, too -- like not giving in to despair! ;-) - Dave xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format