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

Re: XHTML

From: Daniel Hiester <alatus@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 19:36:24 -0800
Message-ID: <004101bf362d$160640c0$70bfb2d1@inanis>
To: <www-html@w3.org>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> What is the SGML feature that one would use for similar
> semantics as XML namespaces provide?

Architectural forms I think do the trick.
<http:http://www.isogen.com/papers/archintro.html>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This just raises another concern for me... when we discuss the future of the
web, which language are we talking about? HTML? XML? XHTML? SGML?

Right now, when we tell our web browsers to go to a website, we're telling
it to read HTML. I may be wrong, but I don't think my copies of Internet
Explorer or Netscape Navigator could view an SGML file.

What about the future, then? Is the plan / hope / ambition that we will have
web browsers that can read XML? Or will we be stuck with browsers that could
only read XHTML?

On another note, I'd like more well-formed documents on the web. I apreciate
more of a sense of logic and, well, form, in a web document. It just seems
to make more sense to me, although I'm essentially a nerd. ::shrugs::

On yet another note, I have faith in the W3C, because, well, I perceive
their decisions to be intelligent, and thoroughly thought out. Okay, so I
don't monitor every little thing it does, and I don't even completely
understand what they stand right now, but I think they know as well as I do
that the functionality of its past recomendations is in jeapordy. I think.
To lose faith in the W3C is, as I see it, to lose faith in the World Wide
Web itself.

Daniel
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 1999 22:34:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:40 GMT