Re: A Case for XHTML

Hi Livio,
Le 12 oct. 2004, à 12:48, Livio Mondini a écrit :
> I think that real problem is web ... web is in html.
>Web is not a problem, web is a wonderful thing, where you
can access to
>thousands of documents. I have though to add something to
what you
>said.web is NOT html, html is part of the web

Sure, web is a wonderful thing, no doubt. But, is necessary
a major definition,
plus many real example, on modular dtd, on semantic.  on
guru sites they are still discussions on as to use headers
...
CSS Zen garden is nice, but now is a little old approach and
it doesn't resolve these semantics problems.

>The very initial web was html + http + url <=== that's
really what the web is.
>Now you can add on top of that css, xml, xslt, soap, etc.
>And I can tell you that's not words in the air, I'm using
them daily
>for simple things which are part of the web.

Yes, in reality my little site not have tables and it work
very well with XML
... but for to many "normal" people xml, soap, other
standards are
only theory.  I would like that instead it became normal.

> My site, in xhtml 1 strict, valid, has a simple table
layout
> for many reason. A very simple and clean table, but a
table.
> Is this XML? I think no, markup as presentational scope.

>xhtml is an application of XML.

Please, define "application of XML". I dont understand this,
XML is applicable? (be patient :-)

>XHTML respects rules of XML, and I can
>tell you that if you are using an XSLT on a XHTML 1.0
document to
>produce for example an RSS feed, you are using XML.

Respect rules? I thought what using XHTML i am in XML ...
sorry, need
explanation (still be patient :-).

>What you are basically saying it's because you are using
tables for
>presentation, you are not using... XHTML as defined in the
defined in
>the spec and basically that would be still the case if you
were making
>your site in HTML 4.01. You will not use properly HTML
4.01. So that
>has nothing to do with XHTML 1.0 or HTML 4.01 but with
using the right
>semantics of elements.

Semantics of elements, this is a basic node. Here (in Italy)
i have many discussion
on "interpretation". But a markup language should not have
interpretation, i think.
Or is a replication of this
http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-html-lex/?

"The hypertext markup language is an SGML format. --Tim
Berners-Lee, in "About HTML"

>It's not only about syntax: SGML versus XML. It's about the
semantics
>of the elements.

Yes, and <table> is not for pagination.

>I'm pretty sure you already know it
http://www.csszengarden.com/ or
>http://cssvault.com/ and many many others.

Ok, i confess, i know this sites :-). But I cannot think
about resolving semantics
problems with CSS ...
I apologize for my english and for provocation, but these
are the questions of
my friends in this land and i never know as to answer
definitely.

Almost sure to have made you laugh

Livio

Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2004 08:07:28 UTC