XHTML 2.0 considered harmful

There, that got your attention.


In case anyone here hasn't seen this yet, if you have any interest in XHTML
2.0, Mark Pilgrim's frank comments are worth a read:

 http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/01/13.html#semantic_obsolescence

After having had my own misgivings about the goals[1] and certainly some of
the specifics[2] of XHTML2, and having first read Daniel's post[3], and now
Mark's, I think there needs to be a serious reconsideration of XHTML2 as an
effort at all.

I'd rather see efforts spent on HTML4/XHTML1,1.1,Basic errata and test
suites.  All of these will provide immediate clear value to the HTML
community.  In addition I think there is value in profiling SVG and SMIL for
integration with XHTML Basic.

Disclaimer: I am Microsoft's representative to, and participate in, the HTML
working group.


Tantek


[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/05/html/charter

"XHTML 2.0, the next generation of XHTML whose design goal is to use generic
XML technologies as much as possible."


[2] XHTML2.0 dumps harmless elements which folks have found semantically
useful. It also dumps the extremely useful 'style' attribute which is
critical for certain applications.


[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2002Dec/0113.html


And for anyone who was offended by the title of this post, please read this:

 http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html

Now, back to your regularly scheduled DTD vs. Schema discussion.

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 05:40:41 UTC