W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-evangelist@w3.org > January 2003

Re: XHTML 2.0 and Semantics

From: Ineke van der Maat <inekemaa@xs4all.nl>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 02:07:39 +0100
Message-ID: <023c01c2bb69$55878460$1d197e50@ineke>
To: <public-evangelist@w3.org>

Hello Karl,

I don't see pop up my previous mail on this list, so i send this still
another time but changed to this list.

You wrote
>I will not adopt the position of the ostrich (put our head in the
sand)<

I have a nice promotion for serving xhtml 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml.
Look http://www.hoehnermusikfan.net/index.xhtml and you see a real
ostrich that does not put its head in the sand.
In German is written when it will not put the head in the sand in 2003
(is rather politically coloured and was meant as a New year's page) .

I hope Mark Pilgrim will see this page too.

This is the only real XHTML-page as a test that my fansite really can be
served as application/xhtml+xml when IE wants to do it.

I have also concerns about future-proof XHTML. Why replacing XHTML 1.*
by something that is not backward compatible when many designers have
not even made the step to xhtml 1.0 transitional?
My concern is that many people will never see a xhtml 2.0 page that is
not backward compatible, simply because they refuse to update their
browsers.  So you must have a page version for valid XHTML 2.0, one for
older browsers and perhaps  a very simple one for platforms as i-mote
too. Or do you really think that everybody immediately will update
her/his browser when XHTML 2.0 is a recommendation?

Greetings
Ineke van der Maat
Received on Monday, 13 January 2003 19:54:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 July 2011 00:13:21 GMT