W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2008

Re: XHTML Basic 1.1 and setting input field to numeric mode

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:28:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4861047F.7090704@eunet.no>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
CC: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org


 > The point is that you can use it if you want in XHTML Basic 1.1.  You 
could not use it
 > at all in XHTML Basic 1.0.  So..... you're welcome!

What you seem to be unaware of is that the standard for mobile (the one 
pretty much every device supports) is XHTML MP 1.0, not XHTML Basic 1.0, 
and that one has supported 'style' (attribute and tag) all the way.
Anyway, sticking to MP is something I can happily do and which I will 
warmly recommend to everyone in the developer community.

Migrating from XHTML 1.X to XHTML 2.0?

what I think you are missing is that XHTML 2.0 does not seem to have a 
chance in heaven to replace XHTML 1.X/HTML as it is being used today. 
Way too different.  Whoever builds XHTML 2.0 apps (for whatever reason) 
will necessarily do it by building them from scratch, and not by 
migrating existing web apps. So, what's the point in having this petty 
feature creep in late versions of a completely different standard? 

If you ask me, someone here isn't understanding developers.

Luca

Shane McCarron wrote:
>
>
> Luca Passani wrote:
>> last time I checked XHTML 2.0 (admittedly some time ago) I realised 
>> that it was something totally detached from what HTML and XHTML are 
>> today. If this is no longer the case, please educate me.
>> If XHTML 2.0 is still the revolution it seemed to be a few years 
>> back, what's the point in smuggling some of the aspects of XHTML 2.0 
>> into 1.1? making people's lives more difficult?
> Err.... what?  marking something as deprecated is a mechanism for 
> assisting document authors and implementors by indicating that a 
> feature is at risk in the future.  It allows people time to get used 
> to NOT using the feature if they choose.  There is no risk if you do 
> rely upon the feature *now*.  The risk is that some day if you want to 
> migrate to some future language (e.g. XHTML 2) you may not find that 
> feature (and FWIW that feature is still in XHTML 2 right now).
>
> As to "smuggling" - give me a break.  The direction of the community 
> is to move away from using bad markup conventions such as embedding 
> @style because it makes it very very difficult for user agents to 
> provide user-selectable alternate styling mechanisms (among many other 
> important reasons).  The W3C has been following the direction of the 
> community in this for years and years.
>
> I appreciate that you are coming into this late, and it may be the 
> case that others will want to chime in and help you understand why 
> @style is a bad idea.  But that isn't really the point.  The point is 
> that you can use it if you want in XHTML Basic 1.1.  You could not use 
> it at all in XHTML Basic 1.0.  So..... you're welcome!
>
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 14:29:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:14 GMT