W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Layout tables

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:37:20 -0500 (EST)
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
cc: <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0103101132430.9414-100000@tux.w3.org>
What XHTML does or does not do is not yet fixed. However it does offer an
opporunity to change from the things that were done in HTML 4 through to
XHTML basic.

On the other hand, I suspect that it will continue not to do things like
music, graphics, etc directly. So from that perspective there won't be "A
single authoring Language". Is the goal to have a language that for a given
document type (graphics, interactive form, basic hypertext, ...) can be
authored once and work acroos a wide range of devices? For the sort of things
that XHTML 2 should do, that seems a reasonable requirement. I suggest that
the discussion be taken from this list, which isn't after all about XXHTML to
that level of detail, and go to WAI PF for accessibility features, or Device
Independence or other lists as appropriate. (I suggest that not doing so is
just inviting the issues to fall through the gaps, leading to the problem
getting worse).


Charles McCN

On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  At 8:35 AM +1100 3/10/01, Jason White wrote:
  >This is where the Web Content Guidelines working group can provide
  >input to PF, and through it, to the HTML working group: we should
  >attempt to document some of the structures which aren't presently
  >available in XHTML, but which are common idioms of web development
  >practice, so that the most important of these can be put forward for
  >possible inclusion in XHTML 2.0.

  Well, that's assuming that XHTML 2.0 is viewed as the solution.  At
  the Device Indepencence Working Group meeting last week in Boston,
  there was talk of the need for a possible "Single Authoring
  Markup Language" (which I quickly dubbed SAML) -- not a real
  name -- which specifically was _not_ XHTML 2.  Of course, I suspect
  that for political reasons (read: the W3C has too much invested
  in the XHTML concept and there are powerful people within the
  W3C on that working group), any attempt to write such a language
  and get it accepted would be shot down.

  A shame, really, since placing all eggs in one basket -- the
  XHTML 2 basket -- is a really, really, really bad idea.  XHTML 2
  does not do the kinds of things that many people need from a


Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Saturday, 10 March 2001 11:37:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC