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 19:25:16 -0500
Message-ID: <410-22003124402516187@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>
> Am Mittwoch, 3. Dezember 2003 21:57 schrieb Ernest Cline:
> > > [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.
> >
> > Why?
> Because XHTML 2.0 provides nice features for authors.
> I especially like <h/> and <section/>, but also <nl/>.


> Oh, using XHTML 2.0 doesn't mean I will discontinue elder versions.
> With XSLT and Ant, it will be virtually no extra work to code in XHTML 2.0
> and in parallel provide two more versions, one in XHTML 1.1 and one
> in HTML 4.01, for outdated user agents.
> Transforming a <nl/> back to XHTML 1.1 and elder won't be easy, but
> that's a work required only once.
> >  I still default to using HTML 4.01unless
> > I need one of the features of XHTML or am mixing
> > in some other XML specification.
> I use XHTML 1.1 or XHTML Basic, depending on the site, and transform it
> both, XHTML 1.1 and HTML 4.01.
> > 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.
> That's true.
> > 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.
> I also sometimes extend XHTML using my own modules defining my own
> or elements and then transform it to XHTML 1.1 and HTML 4.01, often mixed 
> with PHP, Perl or JSP.
> It makes authoring much easier.

I'm afraid that you are an exception that proves the rule.
Based on what you have said here, I have no doubt that you
could devise a CWHHTML and sets of XSLT transformations
to do exactly what you want, but most authors will lack the
knowledge, and more importantly the motivation to gain the
knowledge needed to do so.  Most authors will simply care
to produce one version of their document directly, and while
XHTML 2 has some nice features compared to XHTML 1.1,
in its current form I fail to see it offering sufficient advantages
to make it worth the effort of switching to it to most people.
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2003 19:26:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:59 GMT