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 17:09:24 +0200
Message-ID: <48610E24.9080001@eunet.no>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
CC: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org


 > XHTML Basic has no real purpose except to support the XHTML Mobile 
Profile, as far as I am concerned.

there you go. A written confession. You don't give a damn about mobile.

 >  The working group loves to get input from the community.  We plan on 
publishing an updated
 > public working draft very soon.  If you have comments or concerns, 
please let us know!

well, I have ideas. But they are most likely incompatible with the 
mentality I am seeing around here to be taken into consideration.
Anyway, getting the style attribute undeprecated would be a good start.

Luca

Shane McCarron wrote:
>
>
> Luca Passani wrote:
>> 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. 
> Dude.... we are developers.  These features were added to XHTML Basic 
> because the OMA and the XHTML MP people asked us to put them in.  And 
> we put them in the way we were asked to.  XHTML Basic has no real 
> purpose except to support the XHTML Mobile Profile, as far as I am 
> concerned.
>
> W.r.t. XHTML 2.0 - it is not a big step from 1.1 - except perhaps 
> philosophically.  It incorporates the actual definitions of the 
> elements and attributes, which is an editorial change.  It also 
> extends the language in ways that make it easier to do structured 
> markup should you choose to do so.  I imagine it will ultimately 
> deprecate some features that run counter to its structured markup 
> goals (e.g. h1).  But I expect that in the end everything you can do 
> in XHTML 1.1 or XHTML Basic 1.1 you will be able to do in XHTML 2.   
> We're not idiots, and we have a lot of content and applications of our 
> own that we want to continue to work with minimal effort when the time 
> comes to convert.
>
> The working group loves to get input from the community.  We plan on 
> publishing an updated public working draft very soon.  If you have 
> comments or concerns, please let us know!
>
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 15:10:08 GMT

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