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

Re: XHTML 2.0: Where Is It Going?

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:50:46 +0100
Message-ID: <000301c1276f$44a37260$73ed93c3@Palmer>
To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
> > I tend to use headings, paragraphs, some inline phrasing,
> > HyperText links, and occasionally images.
>
> That's even HTML 2.0 :-)

Yes! I don't really require any functionality beyond that, and if I did,
and someone forced me to reference the extra material rather than include
it inline, I wouldn't mind too much. But I don't think people have to worry
about using tables (as long as they lineraize correctly etc.) or forms in
HTML 4.01. Just be conservative, and your content will probably last longer
without needing an update.

> [...] Last IE6 beta doesn't even know about 'abbr'.

That's true, but it's a bit of a pointless element anyway. Why not expand
the abbreviation inline? I must admit that I have used it a couple of times
though... markup languages are still a bit of a novelty to me :-)

[...]
>  => guidelines suggest to use the 'lang' and 'name' attributes
>     together with 'id' and 'xml:lang'

The *1.0* guidelines *suggest* that. It's not even a conformance
requirement.

[...]
>  => I can't use XHTML 1.1 and XHTML Basic 1.0 since
>     I need both and must deliver them as text/html

Why do you need them both? My advice is to follow the syntactic constraints
of 1.1 and Basic if you are using them and don't worry particularly about
non-normative guidelines in specifications that have been replaced by
these. However, backwards compatability with @name is a bit of a worry for
some people, so just use m12n on XHTML 1.1 and reinstate the legacy name
module. That's what we did for XML GL.

[...]
> 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.

I didn't contradict myself, rather I left out a bit of information which
was vital to the intent of the statement, and that people could not
otherwise gague. Ah well.

[...]
> > 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 ;-)

Perhaps I'll just tinker about with XNote, and if XHTML 2.0 ends up being
better, I'll use that instead :-)

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 18:51:12 GMT

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