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

Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:28:11 +0100
To: "Rick [Kitty5]" <rick@kitty5.com>
Cc: "www html w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20030114212811.GY2767@pasky.ji.cz>

Dear diary, on Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:24:56PM CET, I got a letter,
where "Rick [Kitty5]" <rick@kitty5.com> told me, that...
> Every browser that will support XHTML2 will support every incarnation of
> HTML right back to year dot as well, and all but the most serious dedicated
> professionals are going to continue using what ever mark-up they feel like -
> especially if XHTML2 proves difficult to work with, browser vendors will be
> more likely to produce more propriety mark-up to bridge what inexperienced
> developers see as gaps in the specification.

I'm sorry for possibly bringing up back something which was already discussed
to death many times, I'm not subscribed for a long time. However, wouldn't it
be a wise requirement for each new version of (X)HTML to have at least one
compliant implementation _prior_ to the release? This would:

(a) help w3c to slow down its development so that the world could catch up

(b) help to fill gap in browsers support of the new standards

(c) encourage development of test suites (which would then prove the
compliance)

(d) maybe help Amaya a little, if the standards reference implementations were
done there primarily

(e) allow people to observe results the new standards would be giving

(f) allow people to be able to try the new standards in practice

What do you think?

Kind regards,

-- 
 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 16:29:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:54 GMT