Re: supporting both formats html5 & xhtml5 re: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#xhtml5

Preston L. Bannister wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2007 3:36 AM, Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz 
> <mailto:dean@55.co.nz>> wrote:
>
>     /[snip]/
>     I don't think that support for XHTML5 should be optional. Specifying
>     that user-agents may support only one format, but supporting both is
>     "encouraged" is insufficient and will only lead to a lack of
>     support for
>     XHTML5 like we had with XHTML1 [1]
>
>     We've been down this road before where support for
>     application/xhtml+xml
>     was only an "opt in" for user-agents. That's the main reason we have
>     less than 100 valid XHTML websites today. [2]
>     People wont be able to use XHTML5 if there's no support for it.
>
>
>
> This could also be taken as a clue - that XHTML on the web may not be 
> very relevant.

That's a very bold suggestion to make. You obviously think you know all 
the possible uses of the web from now until eternity.
I'm suggesting that you don't. Millions of people use XML everyday. Do 
you really feel comfortable telling those people that they can't use 
those technologies on the web too?

>
>
> On Dec 20, 2007 6:48 AM, Dean Edridge < dean@55.co.nz 
> <mailto:dean@55.co.nz>> wrote:
>
>     >> A person should be able to create a web page in XHTML5 and have it
>     >> supported by *all* user-agents. If not, the whole idea of "one web"
>     >> gets thrown out the window.
>     >
>     > Why isn't support of HTML5 (non-xml) not enough to have "one web"?
>
>     It's not for you to decide that I or other people don't need XHTML5
>     Ryan. The point of having HTML5 and XHTML5 is to give people options.
>
>
>
> If browser vendors want to support XHTML - that's great.  Should XHTML 
> support be *required* of every browser implementation?  I think not.  
> Weigh the cost to the implementors (present and future) versus the 
> benefit to web developers and users.

I don't think that you know what the benefits are... that's why it's 
better to keep a open mind and give people more options for the future.

> When "cost" to you is free, it is easy to justify anything with a 
> perceived non-zero benefit.  In reality, there is a substantial 
> upfront and ongoing cost incurred to present and future browser 
> implementations. 
>
> XHTML is a marginal feature - certainly popular with a segment of the 
> developer population, but in overall usage, less than compelling.
>
> Personally, I think the best standards are exactly as big as they need 
> to be, and no bigger.  For developers not using XHTML (the majority) 

This is irrelevant. Developers can't use it now because of the little 
support for it. You can't use this as a signal that it's not needed.

> for the standard to /require/ support for XHTML adds bulk without 
> value.  Yes, I read the initial arguments for using XHTML, and used 
> XHTML for a while in my work.  After a while I realized using XHTML on 
> the web really offered (small) negative value

What (little) benefit XHTML offered you in the past is irrelevant. The 
true benefits of XHTML will only be apparent when there is wide spread 
support for it.

> compared to HTML - given no real browser support.
>
> Generally, having two ways of doing the same thing usually is cause of 
> wasted effort.  We need HTML to be well-defined and well-implemented.  
> We do not really /need/ XHTML on the web, 

How would you know this? Can you see what the world will need in the future?

> and we do not need the HTML specification to /require/ XHTML.

Yes we do. It's not a HTML specification anyway. It's a HTML and XHTML 
specification. This is why the spec should never have been called HTML5.


Dean Edridge

Received on Friday, 21 December 2007 03:30:18 UTC