W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: HTML 5 and XHTML 2 combined

From: Brett Patterson <inspiron.pattersonb@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:28:45 -0500
Message-ID: <754508830901071028j4b156c95sd4b25011e8584b2b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "David Woolley" <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Cc: Molte <molte93@gmail.com>, "Shavkat Karimov" <shavkat@seomanager.com>, "HTML Working Group Discussion Mailing-List" <www-html@w3.org>
To throw my two cents worth, though after reading a lot of emails here,
probably not worth 0.5 of a penny, I have to agree with Molte. Here are the
questions I would like to know the answers of:

   - What is the downside to having a mass market web coding standard?
   - Why not use the disadvantages as well? If a coder is used to these
   disadvantages, then it will make it easier to develop a page, would it not?
   And how can you drop the disadvantages anyways? They're going to be there
   whether we like it not, right? Or are we all going to have to work overtime
   to help discuss and fix the disadvantages? I would say we should just leave
   them.
   - So what if XHTML2 doesn't benefit from importing of the HTML5 "cruft,"
   what would be the downside? How would it affect XHTML2, if it doesn't affect
   it in a good way, then how does it affect it in a bad way? If a bad point
   can be seen by all, could we not continue to use the Strict/Transitional
   models we have now. Where we don't import the "cruft" from HTML5 in the
   Strict Model, and do import it in the Transitional Model?I would see no
   difference in what we have now, unless you mean taking out Strict and
   Transitional period. Then where would be, especially when an unexpected and
   unseen problem arises? We can't, on a button, fix it when it needs to be
   fixed.
   - So what if both languages are based on two different "ideologies"? To
   repeat Molte, "Things that are impossible just take longer." And this is
   ever so, undeniably, true. Just because there exists two "ideologies" does
   not constitute a "MUST keep it this way" attitude, does it? At any given
   instance, two "full-fledged" ideas can become one, all it takes is molding.
   - As for "a foundation for document-centric apps that need an unambiguous
   way to include domain-specific data," could we not use what I stated in
   bullet 3? Only with the Strict portion of it?

I see no downside to combining the languages. After figuring out quick
solutions to ALL that has been stated, not only from my e-mails but your own
emails as well, are there really any downsides to combining them? Forgetting
the plusses, but acknowledging the downsides, and the albeit major or
smaller-than-should-be-considerable differences, I cannot, for the life of
me, see why the languages have not already been combined, or even in the
future why couldn't be combined.

--
Brett P.


On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:27 PM, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>wrote:

>
> Molte wrote:
>
>> I think both languages have advantages. I'll list some of the greater ones
>> (after my opinion) below.
>>
>
> In practice, if W3C were to insist that there were only one combined
> language, it would either be essentially the same as the current HTML5, or
> the non-Microsoft browser developers would develop browsers for HTML5 and
> W3C would produce standards which they would ignore.
>
> That's because HTML5 is basically a creation of the mainstream browser
> developers, who are looking at what the mass market and marketing businesses
> want.
>
> With the XHTML2/HTML5 split, what you may well find is that there are
> companies that implement tools for using XHTML2, but they will be sold to
> businesses, particularly information based ones, rather than supplied to the
> general public.
>
> (Note Microsoft do not support XHTML either, but they would rather you used
> their proprietary document languages.)
>
>
> --
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 18:29:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:15 GMT