RE: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
From: AndrewWatt2000@a... [mailto:AndrewWatt2000@a...]
One of the things that struck me about the blog ... maybe coloured by the question I am asking ... is how little mention XHTML gets from Paul.
[len] Paul is attempting to defuse or refute the assertion that the browser is dead, not defend XHTML. The browser isn't dead insofar as
lots of people use them, but mostly, they use one. IMO, once the browser wars ended and it became apparent that endlessly extending
XHTML was a non-starter, the browser was effectively dead in evolutionary terms. Again, still in use but not advancing. Can a non-HTML centric
web browser succeed? Hard question. Typically, generic SGML browsers (a la IADS) had to be setup for the document types they
would handle. This was done in the stylesheets. It took a lot of expert work and therefore, can't be expected of the general population of
web consumers. So when I say, the war is over, the browser lost, this is not a put down of web browsers in general, but the observation
that in the absence of competition, in a millieu where the browser is free, and given a framework where special needs XML can be
met with special purpose easy to build XML clients, there isn't a lot of environmental pressure to improve the HTML browser. The
assumption that an XML generic browser should be developed that will handle any XML defies technical logic. Why do it? Who
could support it? Open source? Ok, have at. Maybe it really is a way to hack into the desktop hegemony, or maybe it is a way to
build a dull performing but generalized XML client. If it requires the kind of setups its historical antecedents needed, it's DOA.
And so it goes.
The critical problem, market wise, is the legacy. Otherwise, does XHTML
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