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

Re: kelvSYC's Thoughts on the new XHTML Draft

From: Andy <aholmes84@shaw.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 18:54:50 -0700
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org
Message-id: <3EC1A1EA.3060707@shaw.ca>

Karl Dubost wrote:

> ...
>>  > Don't two different heading schemes constitute complexity for the
>>>  authors?
>> Yes.  Hence my suggestion to place them in a separate module.  Then that
>> module as a whole can be deprecated.  We can even group all the 
>> deprecated
>> modules together so people know what is still supported, but should be
>> avoided in lieu of new & better solutions.
> I would like that the XHTML 2.0 spec address  also the authoring 
> tools, which is almost not done at all. The problem right now is that 
> in each feature which are developed, we often think in terms of User 
> Agents (browsers) and never in terms of :
>     Authoring Tools
>     Third party software
> In each discussion we should also identify:
>     - Web Developer
>     - Common User
> They are definitely not the same and have different behaviour in their 
> using of HTML. 

Hmm, the way I see it HTML 4.01 has not been deprecated in any sense nor 
will it be within a reasonable time lapse of XHTML 2.0 being completed. 
HTML and XHTML 1.0 will still be around for a long time, and the only 
reason I see people using XHTML currently is as a novelty. I have heard 
some argue that HTML/XHTML1 will always have a niche that XHTML2 will 
not satisfy and I don't think anyone would argue that once XHTML2 is out 
the W3C will simply erase the older DTDs. My long-winded point is, 
people who want the functionality, ease of use etc. of HTML should stick 
to HTML -- it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

> * The case of h1 to h6 versus h
> They have never been used correctly, except a small group of "strict" 
> people who cares about the semantic meaning of elements. This group 
> will be the same group of people who will accept h/section (except a 
> few exceptions).
> The other group which doesn't care will continue, they will still 
> misuse or at least they will not know. Because in a user scenario 
> case. They will create a section, like they do in word processing 
> software and type their text. The thing which is behind is just a 
> piece of code they don't see.

Agreed, I believe that h1...h6 should be atleast deprecated in XHTML 2.0 
and possibly removed in a XHTML 2.1 if there will be such animal. 
h1...h6 are, in my opinion, in their nature contradictory to XHTML; let 
us not forget that the 'X' stands for extensible.

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 21:56:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:03 UTC