[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?

• To: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:11:50 -0500
• References: <002201c29241$8ecf1220$6401a8c0@pcukmka><oprf9x2wyoezizxn@localhost> <3DDEA55F.8020102@p...>
• User-agent: Opera M2 7.0 build 2345

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:45:03 -0800, Paul Prescod <paul@p...> wrote:


> Son of Flash or Son of Blackbird would have to have a compelling business 
> case for anyone to care about it. Microsoft could not make an 
> announcement that they are inventing a hypertext language for markup 
> (HTLM) and expect anyone to care.

Yeah, but they can get to Son of Blackbird one little proprietary 
enhancement at a time.  Or more plausibly, Flash could become more and more 
of a generic hypertext language one step at a time. My point is not that we 
have to be alert to keep the Evil MS or MM people from embracing and 
extinguishing the Web, but that  the Web standards have to keep up to keep 
the non-evil but frustrated people at big companies from being tempted to 
do this. ... and to keep the even more frustrated developers and webmasters 
from being tempted to go further  away from the universal platform ideal.


> What I don't understand is why XHTML 2 is NOT taking a bold swing at an interesting 
> new problem domain. What if it supported rich GUIs? What if it brought 
> metadata to the masses? what if it was tightly bound to SVG so that every 
> element could be filtered and transformed.

Absolutely agree.  I'm thinking of "XHTML 2.x" as a placeholder term for  a 
language that could do this someday, in partnership with the innovative 
browser developers who would implement it.  I realize that XHTML 2.0 as 
drafted is much more modest, but I want to encourage the people and the 
vision, and if we have to move toward the "rich GUIs" goal very 
incrementally, so be it. In other words, let's bury the "bug for bug 
compatibility with IE 3.0" meme, and if XHTML 2.0 moves us there, that's a 
plus.  It may be that XHTML 2.0 needs a lot more sizzle to motivate users 
and developers to go there, I wouldn't  disagree too strongly.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • RE: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Microsoft-phobia and the non-future of XHTML x.x [LONG]
• Next by Date: Re: Excellent IETF BCP on XML
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML and OpenOffice
• Next by thread: Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread