W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2000

Re: The Future Of XHTML

From: Shell Hung <shell@hkscript.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:59:56 +0800
Message-ID: <39521BDC.3C1BD3BE@hkscript.com>
To: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>


Hi,

	[Inline] :

> I'm surprised that W3C haven't seen this bug before,
> but there you go. This also ties in with the recent
> problems outlined with the MIME type of XHTML -
> personally I think a new one "text/xhtml" may be
> needed, because it seems that XHTML is neither HTML or
> XML at all.

Yes, I am agree, but I also believe that XHTML was developed for prepare
the next generation, as the previous disscusion of "Content-Type of
XHTML",
I think "text/xhtml" is needed, but not necessary.

> You may say "well it gets read by the
> browser as HTML (text/html), but what if you had a
> <br/> tag instead of <br />. In some browsers this
> would give problems because it isn't HTML.

I think everyone have this problem when they're XHTML's beginner, the
problem come out from browsers, I think so.


> XHTML needs more thought put into it before XHTML 1.1
> is released. Did anyone see the comments I made about
> XSLT and CSS? Someone pointed out to me that it may be
> better to break away completely from CSS and the old
> HTML semantics of it. XHTML 1.1 should be a pure XML
> language compatible with XSLT for the new upcoming
> branch of XML browsers (e.g. IE5. Does anyone know if
> Netscape 6 supports XML?).

XHTML cannot be a pure XML Language compatible with XSLT as this stage,
but I think it should be more support of XSLT with XHTML, that's great
maybe, [IMAGINE....]

Netscape 6 supports XML, but not fully support, so I am still waiting
the released verions of Netscape 6 which fully supports XML.

> The Internet is evolving to
> fast for some people to catch up, so backwards
> compatability is always going to be an issue, but I
> can see the days where we will be able to have raw
> XHTML, our own XML, and XSLT all combined into one
> document. Ad, what with the coming XForms and XLink
> specifications, the future of XHTML could be very
> bright indeed.

The future XHTML will be replaced by XML, isn't it ?

> Imagine this:-
> You could have a single document that is firstly a
> structural document for all of your screen output:
> this would be done with the XHTML modules. Then, you
> could style this with a mixture of CSS and XSLT (or
> only XSLT if I had my way!). You could then have
> another part of the document that contained raw XML to
> be interpreted by (perhaps) some script on the
> viewable page, or maybe it itself could be transformed
> into XHTML by a further XSLT document. Then, to add
> insult to injury, you could further enhance the
> document by adding interactivity, say including other
> documents from a different server using XLinks, and
> maybe a form here and there?

Yes, you're right, but just depends on the develope speed of XML and
the future needs, I cannot sure your imagine will come tures or not, 
I think it should have a simply way to present the XML documents.

> Overall, everyone will be saying that this is too much
> of a gap to bridge in just one go, but does anyone
> remember how quickly HTML caught on in the first
> place? And what of ASP and all of the other Server
> Side Scripting languages?

There're not same, and cannot be compare with them...


-- 
+-----------------------------+
|   Shell Hung, Director      |
+-----------------------------+
| Sign Your Message With PGP  |
+-----------------------------+
|  http://www.hkscript.com    |
|  PGPKeys:0xC268210F         |
|  mailto:shell@hkscript.com  |
+-----------------------------+
Received on Thursday, 22 June 2000 10:00:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:43 GMT