- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:37:49 -0700
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "ndw@nwalsh.com" <ndw@nwalsh.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Robin said: "I know there is such a community [using HTML and XML] I've long been part of it. I do not however see this move to more divergence that you are describing. A lot of the previous supposed convergence was largely fake, e.g. serving XHTML as text/html. " What is "fake" about it? I don't think "fake" is very descriptive, could you explain what you mean? Did it not work? Did people not use it? Was some specification wrong? I think this is the core of what I would expect to see in the task force report.. "Once you remove the faux convergence, I find that we're actually making decent progress." The ways in which HTML and XML can be used together better than before seem like important things to document in the task force report as well, and I don't think are currently well elaborated. " SVG can now be used in HTML; not long ago it required ungodly hacks" Worth pointing out. And also understanding to what extent can this be extended to other XML languages? If not, is the restriction political or technical? If SVG can be used in HTML, can XHTML be used in HTML? "It is now meaningful to put an HTML parser at the front of an XML pipeline" How do you do this? What are some examples of this? Are there combined HTML/XML parsers? " As a plus side, XML is no longer being perceived as a threat to some of the more religious Web crowd so much of the heckling has abated." The amount of heckling has almost no relationship to technical merit, and thus should not be used as an evaluation criterion. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 07:38:23 UTC