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

Re: kelvSYC's Thoughts on the new XHTML Draft

From: Daniel Glazman <glazman@netscape.com>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 22:25:33 +0200
Message-ID: <3EBD603D.5020205@netscape.com>
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
CC: www-html@w3.org

Tantek Çelik wrote:

> While XHTML2 may be technically a new namespace, for 99.999% of the web
> authoring public out there, it will be the same *conceptual* namespace, that
> of "HTML".

I keep repeating that since I saw the very first plans for XHTML 2.0.
Saying "they get it wrong, it _is_ different" shows a complete strategy failure
if, despite of that so strong argumentation, the audience does not get it.
The audience is not stupid, as some could think it is. The audience will always
try to maximize the feature level for the least complexity level. That's why
some super smart technologies never make it, and some dumb quick and dirty ones
hit the sky.

Did I mention that I don't see browsers ever refuse to render documents because 
they are not strict pure nice XHTML 2.0 ?

Tantek, yes, the HTML WG has for the first time shown some will to listen to
requests. But it is, at least from my personal perspective, far from enough and 
I just cannot tell that XHTML 2.0 is on the good track yet.

The HTML WG has really two choices: (1) make something totally different, pure
from an XML fanatic's point of view and totally semantic-oriented and it should
not be called XHTML (2) make a clean successor for HTML and the good track is
still far away.

Sorry, but I still do not like XHTML 2.0. By the way, it __kills__ me to see
that a W3C WG is releasing a W3C Draft with no XML DTD, based on the W3C Rec
XML, nor any Schema based on the W3C XML Schema Rec, but only a RELAX NG
implementation based on an OASIS spec. Is it a really **W3C** Working Group ?

</Daniel>
Received on Saturday, 10 May 2003 16:24:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:55 GMT