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

RE: B vs Strong

From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:36:47 -0800
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001101c081fb$58b51250$0100a8c0@aries>
Excerpts from Kynn.

>> is to realize that EVERYTHING THEY KNOW IS WRONG.

> Except that not everything they know -is- wrong.

Hyperbole, Kynn.

> Is it okay for me to disagree here?

Perfectly OK.

> They didn't deprecate all the presentational HTML.  Transitional
> HTML/XHTML is not deprecated.

Only as a stopgap measure.

> I personally have no idea why you insist on using (X)HTML, which is
> clearly a warped presentational language, as some sort of structured
> data storage.  I think that -you- are fooling yourself and are way
> behind the times if you are actually trying to structure content
> using the grossly inadequate tools provided for you by (X)HTML.

> Me?  I consider XML-based dialects to be the -correct- way to store
> information in structured form, and XHTML+CSS is simply one presentation
> for specific browsers which require that poor format for producing
> meaningful display for the users.

Agreed. But you've shifted the debate. We were talking about HTML, not about
XML and not, I think, about me.

Personally, I use databases for storage. But occasionally I don't have that
option (or the XML option). Seems like a good idea to me to make it as easy
as possible to convert the HTML to XML later. Just because my client won't
look ahead, doesn't mean I shouldn't.

> Trying to structure content using XHTML and not XML is really like
> trying to draw a photo-realistic sunset using an 8-color box of
> crayolas, instead of mixing your own paint colors.

Golly, I've seen some pretty nice stuff done with crayons though...

Charles Munat
Received on Friday, 19 January 2001 04:29:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:53 GMT