W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [minutes] CT Call 6 january 2009

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:57:20 +0100
Message-ID: <49654160.7050904@eunet.no>
To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

Tom Hume wrote:
> In the spirit of the current conversation, do you have any data you 
> can reference to back up your assertion that most of those sites are 
> mobile already?

Not yet. I am simply inferring this from the fact that serving a regular 
web site as xml+xhtml is a recipe for disaster, so no sane webmaster 
would use anything else but text/html.
I am confident that data will show that those 935 are mostly mobile 
sites (for which xml+xhtml makes sense) plus a handful of "insane" 
Question: if I do, will CTG include xml+xhtml as a valid heuristic to 
identify mobile content?

> Google tells me the pasdarans are the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Are 
> you positing a link between them and the W3C now? ;)
I was actually referring to XML guards. XML lovers who will go out of 
their way to demonstrate that pure XHTML is a viable alternative to HTML 
already today (it isn't). Those people exist, they are responsible for 
negligible amount of web content (<0.001%) and their paths have 
typically crossed the one of W3C (which does not mean that they are 
necessarily affiliated to W3C, just that they are intimately familiar 
with everything W3C produces).


> On 7 Jan 2009, at 23:05, Luca Passani wrote:
>> yes, sure. When you get back to reality, you will realize that 99,84% 
>> are HTML documents (some of which may have whatever DTD, but all of 
>> which will be invariably handled by the respective tag-soup parsers).
>> The remaining 0.16% are in great majority mobile-optimised sites, 
>> i.e. exactly the ones that the heuristics intends to positively 
>> identify (i.e. my point all the way).
>> What remains after you have taken 2% of that 0.16% is a handful of 
>> full-web site which are using xhtml+xml for demo purposes.  You can 
>> probably also find the site of some XML pasdaran who intends to make 
>> a point about XHTML in the face of the reality (someone who is 
>> intimately familiar with the complete W3C technology stack, I am 
>> sure, but does not need to run a website that profits on the 
>> popularity among large audiences...)
> -- 
> Future Platforms Ltd
> e: Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com
> t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
> m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
> company: www.futureplatforms.com
> personal: tomhume.org
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 23:58:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:30 UTC