W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > March 1999

Re: XHTML

From: Braden N. McDaniel <braden@shadow.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 01:56:56 -0500
Message-ID: <029801be7043$59be0e20$343a11cf@boneone>
To: <mloots@medic.up.ac.za>, <www-html@w3.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: Marius Loots <MLOOTS@medic.up.ac.za>
To: <www-html@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 2:45 AM
Subject: RE: XHTML


> I might be wrong here, but the feeling I get is that as the whole
> standards thing progresses, some systems that are working very well for a
> large quantity of users, get moved, and in the process complicating the
> process of writing HTML.

What is it that you perceive to be moving, and how so?

>  I only use HTML 3.2 and get almost everything
> done that I want to have done.  I also only use a core of the whole and
> if you only want to deliver information, this suffice.  If I move to HTML
> 4, the extra coding and complication is not worth what I want to provide.
>
> The above seems a lot of gibberish - what I am trying to say:
> Shouldn't there be a core set of HTML that won't change and which can be
> used by the majority of people who only want a basic webpage without all
> the bells and whistles?  My suggestion would be a stripped down version
> of the present HTML 3.2.

HTML 3.2 won't change. It is a finished specification. The same is true for
HTML 4.0. What is it exactly that you are calling for here?

The W3C couldn't kill HTML (pick a version) if they wanted to. XHTML is a
migration path for those who want the benefits XML has to offer. If those
benefits don't suit you, don't migrate. As a matter of necessity, Web
browsers will have to be able to read HTML (2.0, 3.2, 4.0) documents for a
long time to come.

Braden
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 1999 01:59:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:38 GMT