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

Re: XHTML

From: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 12:26:52 -0500
Message-ID: <002801bf36a1$205c07c0$6cafdccf@preferreduser>
To: "Daniel Hiester" <alatus@earthlink.net>, <www-html@w3.org>
> 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?

I think we should think as the old web as HTML, and the 'new' web as both
HTML and XML

> 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.

No ,basically you need an SGML viewer + a DTD to read an SGML file (I know
that is not strictly accurate Russel!)

> 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?

Right now IE5 does an OK job (well OK for a start), and Gecko does a better
job of viewing xml files .

> 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.

I'm not sure that evry one would agree with all that statement! <grin/>,
however the W3c are the people who are moving the Web forward, even if they
do occasionally seem to take a few backward steps!

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Hiester <alatus@earthlink.net>
To: <www-html@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: XHTML


> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> > 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 Wednesday, 24 November 1999 12:15:06 GMT

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