[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: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:37:44 -0500
• References: <175.1208a29f.2b0bc843@a...>
• User-agent: Opera M2 7.0 build 2345

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:00:51 EST, <AndrewWatt2000@a...> wrote:


>
> Another formulation might be, "Starting with a clean sheet of paper, does 
> it make sense to develop XHTML further?".

The sheet of paper isn't clean.  HTML is the most widely deployed document 
format
in history.  XHTML would be irrelevant if HTML didn't exist, sure.  But 
since HTML does
exist, the question is whether to let it ossify or whether to let it 
evolve.  (Or rather,
to have it evolve at the W3C or have it fragment into pieces that will 
evolve separately).
Those who don't like the W3C should think hard about the likely alternative 
venues for
the larger fragments of the HTML standard ...a "Web Browser 
Interoperability Organization" with RAND-friendly IP rules, maybe?  "Hello, 
I'm the Devil you know.
I'd like to introduce you to the Devil you don't know. I'm sure you'll hit 
it off just fine."

Surely the argument isn't whether to have the "HTML" standard be maintained 
in
SGML syntax or in XML syntax?  In retrospect, maybe converting to XML 
didn't add a whole lot of value to the spec itself, but if it gets Joe 
Webmaster to learn the well-
formedness constraints, its a win IMHO :-)

I think I know the agenda of some of the parties

• References:
  • Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...

• Prev by Date: RE: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is ha rd )
• Next by Date: Re: The truth about standards...
• Previous by thread: Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
• Next by thread: XSL transformation
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread