W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Deciding in public (Was: SVGWG SVG-in-HTML proposal)

From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:44:57 -0500
Message-ID: <da131fde0808011544s2e39ec99q64fc3d6288f14374@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
Cc: public-html@w3.org

'order-of-magnitude smaller' was a poor choice and not meant to be
inflammatory.  My assertion has to do simply with my understanding of
global browser market share.  The market share of XHTML-aware browsers
has only recently (within the last two years) come into something that
I would term 'significant' (above the 10 percent mark).

On the other hand, the percentage of users using XHTML-aware browsers
on my site is over 50%.  I serve XHTML+SVG to those who can consume it
and let my content (c)rudely fall back to text/html for IE.

Jeff Schiller

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)
<P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear Jeff -- Although I do not entirely agree with
> your analysis (I do not believe it goes far enough :
> "mixing existing languages on web pages" is far
> short of the extensibility that I and others long
> for), I would like to ask you to clarify one
> point : on what basis do you assert that
> "the potential audience/readership [of XHTML] is
>  an order-of-magnitude smaller" ?
> Philip TAYLOR
> --------
> Jeff Schiller wrote:
>> a) I think most of the members of the WG believe the ability to mix
>> existing languages on web pages (SVG, MathML) inside HTML is a good
>> idea.  [...]
>> We cannot definitively say why XHTML has not been successful on the
>> web - is it because of the less-forgiving XML syntax or is it because
>> the potential audience/readership is an order-of-magnitude smaller?
>> [...]
Received on Friday, 1 August 2008 22:45:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:36 UTC