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

Re: XHTML 2.0 User Agent Conformance

From: Lachlan Hunt <lhunt07@postoffice.csu.edu.au>
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 00:48:39 +1100
Message-ID: <3FA3B9B7.9040808@postoffice.csu.edu.au>
To: www-html@w3.org



David Woolley wrote:

>>  Why shouldn't UAs have knowledge of the XHTML DTD?  If a DOCTYPE is 
>>specified, then isn't it a requirement of XML that the document 
>>    
>>
>
>Firstly I believe that they should, but there is a lobby, particularly
>on the www-css list, that takes the view that browsers should purely
>apply CSS to XML.  My impression is that the person to whom I wrote the
>long response about the semantic web, etc., belongs to that lobby.
>
  Totally agree with you on that point!  If the whole point of browsers, 
and the web was purely to make pages look *pretty*, then, as I 
understand their view, having presentation elements in XHTML would be 
completely acceptable, since presentational elements are just XML tags 
with default CSS renderings.
  Or, what about: lets just replace everything with <div class="xxx"> 
and <span class="yyy">, since in their opinion semantics are irrelevant.
  (of course, I'm being sarcastic about this, it's just hard to portray 
that meaning in text, without some kind of <sarcasm> tag.  So, please no 
replies about what a stupid idea that would be)

>One particular characteristic of that lobby is that they reject the
>idea that there should be any named character entities other than the
>four (?) in the XML specification itself.
>
I'm neutral on the character entity argument, I haven't read the reasons 
pros and cons for that yet..

CYA
...Lachy
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2003 08:52:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:40:09 UTC