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

Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful

From: (wrong string) äper <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:08:10 +0100
Message-ID: <033b01c2bd2e$07111320$3ef4ae8b@heim4.tuclausthal.de>
To: <www-html@w3.org>

Daniel Glazman:
> Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
>
>>> copy and paste preserving the style.
>>
>> You cannot copy and paste *content with the styling information only*
>> if the target medium is sematic one, like (X)HTML. Period.

A browser may use a meta language that's being used to copy text including
the style it is currently being displayed in to clipboard etc. HTML/CSS is
not capable of this and never will, because the styles can be inherited from
*many* different places--they'll almost never be /all/ in one place like the
style attribute.

> You are telling me that we won't be able to produce wysiwyg authoring
> tools for the new standard of the web just because it is not made for that
?

Probably yes, why surprised? It has never been possible to create
What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get-HTML-editors, just
What-You-See-Is-What-You-*Might*-Get-HTML. At the most you see what you get,
but not what everyone else gets.

There's nothing wrong with /structure editors/ that also apply some styles.

> If this is the goal of XHTML 2.0, then "XHTML 2.0 delenda est".

Huh? There are different languages for different goals. There are e.g. tasks
that can't be done with HTML, but perfectly with a different ML, PDF,
SVG/Flash, *Script, PNG/JPEG/GIF...

Christoph Päper
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 02:07:52 GMT

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