W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2003

Re: a recommendation - Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 14:01:42 EDT

From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:57:56 -0500
Message-ID: <410-220031233205756515@mindspring.com>
To: "Christian Wolfgang Hujer" <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
Cc: www-html@w3.org

> [Original Message]
> From: Christian Wolfgang Hujer <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
> And believe me, as soon as there's a Content-Type and a
> User Agent for XHTML 2.0, I will use it.


The biggest hurdle  that XHTML 2 faces is that there is that
for most people it does nothing that cannot be done with
XHTML 1.1 or even HTML 4.01.  Unless an author feels
a need to use XForms or XEvents, the only reason I see
in the present draft for using XHTML 2 is to make techies
such as ourselves feel good.  Modest tweaks and the
<nl> element are not sufficient IMO to warrant using
XHTML 2 when using XHTML 1.1 or HTML4.01 (sans
presentational elements such as <i> of course) can do
the job and can be understood by a wider variety of
user agents.  I still default to using HTML 4.01unless
I need one of the features of XHTML or am mixing
in some other XML specification.

XHTML2 may be a tighter spec than XHTML1 or
HTML, but I can achieve tightness on mine own by
simply using a subset of the existing specs. Indeed,
the subset of HTML 4.01 that I use is almost
XHTML 1.1except for using lang instead of
xml:lang and the lack of ending /'s on empty elements.
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:57:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:06 UTC