W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Maturity Re: (of XML)

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 12:51:07 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0708011951n6bc84d3fh6e04615a58017b8@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, "Philip Taylor" <philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk>, public-html@w3.org

On 8/2/07, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Well, the easiest way to avoid that is not to put in claims like "XML
> bad" in the first place :-)

Absolutely. Any such statements would definitely need context, and
even so I'm not sure they belong in the spec. You know, if HTML 5
remains current for a decade (as HTML 4.01 has!) such statements may
be irrelevant. (Whereas advice on good titles should stand the test of
time).

"Today" I lean towards HTML for publishing web pages. I use XHTML
within Atom feeds. And if I am doing any backend work (content
management/manipulation/storage etc) then I would absolutely use XHTML
(usually a custom variant that might include bits from XHTML2 draft,
HTML5 of other XML vocabs) - even if it is later transformed and
deployed as HTML (or XHTML in a feed).

In the end I don't find any "better" - in fact, they work very well
together. The spec should be neutral on the topic, though advice on
traps and correct handling is vital (even if hard to understand at
times - like @xmlns ;)

cheers
Ben
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2007 02:51:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:03 GMT