- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 05:51:22 -0500
- To: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jul 15, 2007, at 5:58 PM, Smylers wrote: > Robert Burns writes: >> >> For compatibility. There may be other reasons too, but foremost we >> should be a good citizen in the XML community. > > Why? That isn't in our design principles, let alone the "foremost" > principle which should override others; compatibility with existing > browsers is in there. I was using foremost as in the foremost reason for doing this (this being trying to be compatible and degrade gracefully when <img> elements have content) is to be a good XML citizen. I clearly wasn't saying this was a foremost thing this WG should do. > Though if that is our foremost aim, we should probably also change > this > in the spec: > > Generally speaking, authors are discouraged from trying to use > XML on > the Web I would agree. It is very heavy-handed for a recommendation to tell authors what serialization they should use or to even go out of its way to deprecate other W3C recommendations. Also it fails to recognized how widespread XML is already on the web: though not necessarily as a document or web page delivery format. However, the way it is stated it sounds like XML in general is discouraged on the web. That would imply no SOAP, no XML-RPC, no Atom, no WebDAV, CalDAV, no XSLT,, etc.. XML has swept over the web in the last few years. I expected that line has been in the draft a long time and just hasn't yet been removed. Regardless, one can already see how dated a statement like that can become in even a few years of developing a draft. Its definitely not the kind of statement we would want to leave in there if we expected our recommendation to be read and relevant for any length of time. Take care, Rob
Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 10:51:31 UTC