Re: WASP asks the W3 XHTML 1.0 or HTML 4.01

"Brian Kelly" <B.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk>

> The WaSP page says 'XHTML is XSL ready'
>
> I agree this is a valid reason - but there's still the MIME type issue
> to consider.

The problem I have with this argument is that you're imposing the needs of a
particular programming language onto every author and user agent in
existance, when it should really only be people wishing to use XSLT - HTML
4.01 -> XHTML 1.0 is a mechanical automated process available from a number
of tools.  I do not feel that users of XSLT should impose their needs on the
rest of us, or that using XSLT is an argument.

Also of course people with XSLT hammers would be easily able to convert
their XHTML to HTML 4.01, and serve both to users, there'd be virtually no
cost in doing so.

> Wouldn't "Switching from HTML 4.01 to XHTML 1.0 currently
> brings almost no  direct benefits for the visitors of your Web
> site but the ability to make use of XSLT provides the potential
> for a range of benefits" be a reasonable comment to make?

Probably, although as above I don't feel XSLT alone is a particularly strong
argument.

> The position I'm coming to is that XHTML + correct MIME type should be
> deployed today in circumstances in which compliant XHTML 1.0 can be
> guaranteed

I fully support and agree with this, XHTML in such an environment would lose
most of the negatives, without compromising any of the positives.

Cheers,

Jim.

Received on Thursday, 30 October 2003 14:52:46 UTC