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

Re: supporting both formats html5 & xhtml5 re: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#xhtml5

From: Preston L. Bannister <preston@bannister.us>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:21:46 -0800
Message-ID: <7e91ba7e0712201621y4aba1ad2tafa1c3889ac083b9@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dean Edridge" <dean@55.co.nz>
Cc: ryan <ryan@theryanking.com>, "Shawn Medero" <soypunk@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Dec 19, 2007 3:36 AM, Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz> wrote:

> *[snip]*
> I don't think that support for XHTML5 should be optional. Specifying
> that user-agents may support only one format, but supporting both is
> "encouraged" is insufficient and will only lead to a lack of support for
> XHTML5 like we had with XHTML1 [1]
>
> We've been down this road before where support for application/xhtml+xml
> was only an "opt in" for user-agents. That's the main reason we have
> less than 100 valid XHTML websites today. [2]
> People wont be able to use XHTML5 if there's no support for it.
>


This could also be taken as a clue - that XHTML on the web may not be very
relevant.


On Dec 20, 2007 6:48 AM, Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz> wrote:

> >> A person should be able to create a web page in XHTML5 and have it
> >> supported by *all* user-agents. If not, the whole idea of "one web"
> >> gets thrown out the window.
> >
> > Why isn't support of HTML5 (non-xml) not enough to have "one web"?
>
> It's not for you to decide that I or other people don't need XHTML5
> Ryan. The point of having HTML5 and XHTML5 is to give people options.
>


If browser vendors want to support XHTML - that's great.  Should XHTML
support be *required* of every browser implementation?  I think not.  Weigh
the cost to the implementors (present and future) versus the benefit to web
developers and users.  When "cost" to you is free, it is easy to justify
anything with a perceived non-zero benefit.  In reality, there is a
substantial upfront and ongoing cost incurred to present and future browser
implementations.

XHTML is a marginal feature - certainly popular with a segment of the
developer population, but in overall usage, less than compelling.

Personally, I think the best standards are exactly as big as they need to
be, and no bigger.  For developers not using XHTML (the majority) for the
standard to *require* support for XHTML adds bulk without value.  Yes, I
read the initial arguments for using XHTML, and used XHTML for a while in my
work.  After a while I realized using XHTML on the web really offered
(small) negative value compared to HTML - given no real browser support.

Generally, having two ways of doing the same thing usually is cause of
wasted effort.  We need HTML to be well-defined and well-implemented.  We do
not really *need* XHTML on the web, and we do not need the HTML
specification to *require* XHTML.
Received on Friday, 21 December 2007 00:21:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:51 UTC