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..

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

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