W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2001

Re: XHTML 2.0: Where Is It Going?

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:05:47 +0200
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d95rnt4mqnaae4r0ep904a1c3ue3ijfcb9@4ax.com>
* Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>> If backwards compatibility means everything to you, you won't
>> use anything but HTML 4.01 Transitional or even better HTML
>> 3.2 [...]
>
>I tend to use headings, paragraphs, some inline phrasing, HyperText links,
>and occasionally images.

That's even HTML 2.0 :-)

>I try to use metadata, but the HTML metadata
>elements aren't all that great. But all of these mechanisms are backwards
>compatable going all the way to Mosaic, and all of which are included
>within XHTML 1.0, 1.1, and Basic.

optgroup, col, colgroup, fieldset, label, legend, link, object, ...
poor support for most of them in not too current browsers. Last IE6 beta
doesn't even know about 'abbr'.

>> [...] if you want backwards compatibility you must label your
>> pseudo-XHTML document as text/html and to do this, you
>> must follow the combatibility guidelines of XHTML 1.0 and
>> that's not possible for XHTML 1.1 or XHTML Basic 1.0
>> without a major lost of functionality.
>
>Er... pardon me?

 => guidelines suggest to use the 'lang' and 'name' attributes together
    with 'id' and 'xml:lang'
 => to label XHTML documents as text/html you must follow the guidelines
 => XHTML 1.1 and XHTML Basic 1.0 don't include these attributes
 => I can't use XHTML 1.1 and XHTML Basic 1.0 since I need both and must
    deliver them as text/html

>> It is not possible to deliver XHTML document to user
>> agents that don't support XHTML, so there is no need
>> to design XHTML 2.0 backwards compatible with
>> current user agents; it's not even possible.
>
>Of course not! When have I ever suggested that XHTML 2.0 should be
>backwards compatable???

That's my reading of your "Backwards compatability is everything"; I
didn't get why you contradicted yourself in the later part of your mail.

>> XHTML 2.0 will replace the proprietary methods from
>> XHTML 1.0 (linking, forms, meta data, etc.) by general
>> purpose XML technologies, [...]
>
>That will be good if so, but I'm not getting my hopes up too high. It's a
>difficult task.

I'm sure you and me will help the HTML WG to get the best XHTML 2.0
possible ;-)
-- 
Björn Höhrmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de } http://www.bjoernsworld.de
am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/
Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 18:06:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:49 GMT