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

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

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:57:35 -0400
Message-ID: <48976D3F.7090109@mit.edu>
To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

Chris Wilson wrote:
> [2] I would not say "XHTML is the wrong approach," per se - I am
> recognizing the realities of both deploying XHTML, given that it is
> not supported in current versions of IE and the adoption rates put
> that several years out at best, and the reality of the obvious lack
> of belief from the other browser and content representatives that
> XHTML is a good way to deliver content.

The "obvious lack of belief" you mention is more like "obvious 
resignation to the fact that IE isn't planning to support XHTML any time 
soon, so it's not usable in practice unless you're willing to require a 
non-IE browser"

That is, it's simply part of your "realities of deploying XHTML, given 
that it is not supported in current versions of IE".  There is no 
separate reality here involving other browser implementors, where your 
message implies there is one.

> You are correct, we cannot definitively say why XHTML has not been
> successful on the Web.

While true, I can point to one reason that would have made it 
unsuccessful no matter what: lack of support in 90+% of UAs (that is, in 
IE/Windows).

Hard to say whether removing that impediment would have made it 
successful, of course.

> Perhaps I am misreading the tea leaves; I don't see much
> interest in XHTML's future from the other browsers.

I'm not sure what gave you this idea.  From what I can tell, said "other 
browsers" are committed to supporting an XML serialization of HTML and 
to fixing bugs in said support.  What else were you looking for in terms 
of "interest"?

-Boris
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 21:01:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:57 UTC