Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:24:58 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@i...> wrote: > [len] I consider it a legitimate question but one either has to frame it > in a context of XHTML vs HTML (are the improvements in the language worth > the pain of adopting it), or in the overall framework of XML in which the > notion of the UIVM as a means of handling any XML via transformation or > datasets has been thoroughly explored. It seems to me -- in len's terms -- that the whole point of XHTML is to migrate the UIVM from hard-coded HTML towards a more general XML processing model. XML browsers have the potential for recognizing namespaces other than HTML (as well as other MIME types such as PDF or Flash) for their extensibility model. This has all sorts of potential advantages, e.g. self-contained web pages that have embedded SVG images rather than Web pages that cause separate HTTP requests for each JPG image. ... or generic XForms processors. Sheesh, for all the pain that namespaces have created, it would be really nice to get some tangible gain :-) Of course, one doesn't NEED HTML semantics built into such an XML-aware UIVM, but as a practical matter it's needed for legacy reasons (as len says). Does XHTML 2.0 take us a workthwhile distance towards this vision? I dunno. Why aren't the browser developers supporting it? (Well, Mozilla sortof does, and Opera 7 may). Maybe the W3C XHTML folks need to work harder to get the browser developers on board the way they were in HTML 4.0 days. I dunno. That will take some diplomacy and dialog, I'm sure ... not to mention some unpleasant choices between greater and lesser evils.
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