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

Re: XHTML 2.0 Props.

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:01:24 -0000
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <bm4su1$eo2$1@sea.gmane.org>


"Cortland Haws" <pixelcort@pixelcort.com> wrote in message
news:B5DEF421-FAB2-11D7-A8C6-000A958216AE@pixelcort.com...
> It would seem that many people are mad that XHTML 2.0 may be
> non-backwards compatible with previous versions. IMHO, you have to draw
> the line somewhere. If we keep supporting old semantics, we will never
> be able to use new semantics.

Not at all, new semantics, and new elements can be introduced if your XML
languages are carefully designed, see:

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-20031003.html

for discussion.

However, there's also no need to not go for a big bang approach, indeed I
think their should be a big bang approach, as long as it's easy to request
an XHTML 2.0 document, and identify an XHTML 2.0 document  (ie you can
construct an http accept header which says I only want XHTML 2.0 - not XHTML
1.0 or 1.1 with the different semantics) then there are no problems at all
in deploying a new mark-up language.

So as long as the WG organises a strong guidelines for serving XHTML 2.0
such as the mime-type, and not do it in a note a long time after publishing
when everyone is getting it wrong leaving us in mess - we should have no
problems authoring an incompatible XHTML 2.0

> The W3C has the potential to break some nasty habits semantically in
> (X)HTML with the current situation in XHTML 2.0.

Well it would be nice if the HTML WG made public the actual problems XHTML
2.0 is intending to solve, it currently baffles me the point of the public
working drafts when we can't comment on more than their internal consistency
and typographical mistakes.

Jim.
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2003 20:02:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:58 GMT