Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] The non-future of XHTML x.x [LONG]
 Some initial responses to my earlier post entitled "What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?" seemed to start from the premise that it is a given that development of XHTML 2.0 is a good thing. I see no basis for making such an assumption without careful and thoughtful analysis. This post introduces some ideas which suggest, to me at least, that further development of XHTML or calling a halt to such further development is an issue which merits serious analysis and discussion. This post focusses primarily on practical rather than purely technical issues. I will develop two simple premises: 1. Indefinite continued development of not-charged-for Web browsers is an unsustainable business model 2. All technologies reach a point where they have outgrown their usefulness. (X)HTML is no exception. 1. The not-charged-for Browser model To develop any non-trivial piece of software demands developer time and other resources. Those resources cost money. A business which invests money only to give away its products will soon become a former business. The not-charged-for Web browser is, in the general case, not sustainable. Simon St Laurent supports the continuance of the not-charged-for browser model. Yet, OReilly.com does not provide its books or other services free of charge nor would I expect it to. If OReilly.com moved to a not-charged-for business model I anticipate it would not continue in business for long. In reality, of course, the not-charged-for Web browser is in many cases being subsidised by some charged-for activity. In the case of Mozilla/Netscape I understand that a significant proportion of development is by developers who draw a salary (or part salary?) from Netscape. So, if that is correct, I as an AOL subscriber and many millions of others subsidise the development of Mozilla. Similarly Internet Explorer is not "free". A small, but undefined, proportion of the cost of a Windows operating system licence provides the income to justify Web browser development. I anticipate that we will soon enter a phase when we have what I term "user agent turmoil", by which I mean that we will have many types of user agent including "rich clients" competing in similar spaces. Some rich clients which are charged for, some poor man's browsers which are free, for example. Rich clients will, if properly implemented, provide added value for corporate and other paying clients. Since the "richness" of these "rich clients" will determine much of their success and failure in the marketplace it is essential that they can be diffentiated from the not-charged-for poor man's browsers. That such rich clients will appear shouldn't be surprising. At one time mere users had nothing better than dumb terminals on the desktop. Then along came applications which ordinary folk had access to. When the Web arrived we had "simple" Web browsers - not-quite-dumb terminals if you like. As user needs become more sophisticated we will move on to rich clients. I expect this to happen since such rich clients will meet user needs which are not met by the Web browser. Of course the not-charged-for Web clients will attempt to keep up or catch up. If cross-subsidies continue they may keep up fairly well. But I doubt very much if they will keep up fully, since the indefinite continuation of such cross-subsidies is doubtful. But if, hypothetically, AOL/Netscape realise that they can create a rich client for which they can charge will they, in a fierce business climate, continue to subsidise Mozilla? Would an alert shareholder population allow them to? If, again hypothetically, Opera had similar concerns about shareholder value ... and both AOL/Netscape and Opera leave ... what price continuance of the HTML [sic] Working Group? User agent turmoil, which I expect to become highly visible over the next 12 to 24 months, may well result in HTML [sic] Working Group turmoil. Or extinction. Which W3C WG will wish to be seen to develop the poor man's browser? As my signature says, "XHTML 2.0 - the W3C leading the Web to its full potential ... to implement yesterday's technology tomorrow". Hardly the notion that a forward-looking software business with a viable business model would want to be associated with, in my view. I expect that many rich clients will wish to distinguish themselves from yesterday's technology. Exit XHTML? 2. All technologies reach the end of their life-cycle I am not using DOS version 17.0 nor OS/2 version 7.3. Why? Those once useful technologies reached a stage in their life cycle when, considered against other options, they were no longer viable for me. In time they became viable for nobody. They died. The same applies to XHTML. The only point of doubt is whether XHTML 1.1, XHTML 2.0 or, say, XHTML 932.4 is the last version. What value does XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 add for HTML users? The consensus in a recent discussion on XHTML-L was that the advantages are surprisingly few. XHTML 1.0 and 1.1, to be fully implemented, need a new generation of browser clients. Which companies are going to invest in clients to support these when better business cases can perhaps be built on rich clients using alternate technologies? The same question also applies to XHTML 2.0. If XHTML 2.0 is to be a worthwhile investment for W3C to pursue then a good business case needs to be made for its continued development. If such a case exists I am not aware of it being made public. In an anticipated era of user agent turmoil XHTML 2.0 may quietly sink without trace if it doesn't provide substantive added value for rich clients. I pause here to allow supporters of development of XHTML 2.0 to put forward arguments in its favour. Andrew Watt "XHTML 2.0 - the W3C leading the Web to its full potential ... to implement yesterday's technology tomorrow" 
|
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
|
|||||||||
