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

RE: XHTML 2.0: Stay the course

From: Richard Norman <normri@samc.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:49:00 -0800
Message-Id: <se26801d.044@samc.com>
To: <www-html@w3.org>

I would have to agree with this post.  While we all debate the Working
Group's choices and the documents published,  We have no "FULL"
understanding of what the goal is.
 
Like mentioned before, if it is to create a brand new language that has
few relations to the older HTML specifications, then these arguments are
a mute point.  However if the goal is to make a "useable" and "clean"
spec that can be used for HTML as we know and love today, then there are
some issues brought up that need discussion.
 
If the spec as stated went forward today as is, I think that many user
agents would just ignore the spec until one came along that was more
inline with what is more "do able" for them and does not totally throw
away the work they have done already.  At best XHTML 1.0 or XHTML 1.1
could be achieved.
 
If if the goal is to make the entire web use the XHTML 2.0 spec, more
direction and more information on goals would be needed to be clarified.
 If these documents exist, could someone post links to them so everyone
has a clear understanding of what is really the goal and purpose...
 
Richard Norman

-----Original Message-----
From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu> 
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:18 PM
To: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>, "'www-html@w3.org'"
<www-html@w3.org>
Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0: Stay the course




On 1/15/03 2:22 PM, "Micah Dubinko" <MDubinko@cardiff.com> wrote: 

> 
> This is just a short response to the whole 'XHTML 2 considered
harmful' 
> meme. 
> 
> I recently went through the recent XHTML 2 drafts carefully to get a
handle 
> on what has changed. The results are at [1]. Less has changed than the

> impression I got from reading various blogs this week. :_) 

The problem is not just what has changed, but what is being pushed to
change 
(vis_a_vis XLink ugliness and other usability_unfriendly "generic XML" 
short_sightedness). 

> I see lots of conflicting wants and needs on this list. The reasonable

> course is to keep moving forward. I don't support the notion of
scrapping or 
> renaming XHTML 2.0. Prioritization is worth discussing, as always. 

I agree with your last point that prioritization is worth discussing. 

  HYPERLINK "http://tantek.com/log/2003/01.html#L20030114t1345"
\nhttp://tantek.com/log/2003/01.html#L20030114t1345 

> Specific issues (<cite>, 'style' attribute, <separator/>, etc.) are
all 
> solvable problems, especially when clear goals are in mind [2]. 

The fact that they arose as problems to begin with indicates that the 
process (or priorities, or both) are seriously broken as Daniel Glazman 
pointed out. 


> Given all the discussions, especially recently, it would be good for
the 
> HTML WG to pause and write up a separate requirements document, which
would 
> help everybody understand the goal and tradeoffs inherent in the work
being 
> done. 

Completely agreed. 

My comments on the goals: 

Having thought about XHTML2 and its goals more, and where the web is
today 
and could/should be tomorrow, I think XHTML2 as scoped does not make any

sense for the HTML WG to work on. 

In my opinion the problems from XHTML2 can be traced back to two design 
goals: 
 1. Use more "generic XML" technologies 
 2. Not be backward compatible 

As long as XHTML2 has these two "requirements", I think it will only be
bad 
for the web and fail. 

I believe in prioritizing and focusing time and effort on: 
  1. HTML4 errata and test suites 
  2. the same for XHTML 1.x 
  3. a further simplified/reduced XHTML Basic 1.1 
  4. profiles of SVG and SMIL that could be added to XHTML Basic for a 
richer interactive media format. 

Rather than a fear_inspiring XHTML2, I would like to see: 
  1. improved versions of some of the modules in XHTML M18N, 
  2. perhaps even a new module or two with new elements (like some of
the 
new elements in XHTML2 which I do think have merit). 

Whether those modules get bundled up into
 a new version of XHTML is
another 
matter, and perhaps a lot less relevant, because authors should 
theoretically be able to simply pick and choose modules to form their
own 
XHTML family language. 

Someone said on www_html that XHTML 2.0 is going to be like HTML 3.0. 
I think that is optimistic at best. 

Thanks, 

Tantek 


--- 
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. 
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ( HYPERLINK "http://www.grisoft.com"
\nhttp://www.grisoft.com). 
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002 
  


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002
 


**************************************************************************************************
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
It is intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager or  the 
sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any one or make copies.

**************************************************************************************************
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 12:49:53 GMT

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