Re: Supporting MathML and SVG in text/html, and related topics

I know this will get me labeled, but the real reason why xhtml,
mathml, and svg "failed" has nothing to do with their technical design
and everything to do with Microsoft resting on their laurels after
using anti-competitive tactics to eliminate competition in the browser

That is why I feel good about the situation going forward - no matter
what happens with the standards - because Microsoft is increasingly
not in a position to dictate terms.

On 4/16/08, Paul Libbrecht <> wrote:
> Le 15 avr. 08 à 16:51, David Carlisle a écrit :
> > However if HTML5 is standardised in its current form then there is no
> > chance of a general move to XML on the web ever happening. People,
> > authoring tools, web browsers, will all typically use text/html with the
> > more forgiving parsing that implies. This isn't necessarily a bad thing,
> > but it's definitely not the original vision at the time xml, xhtml,
> > mathml were conceived.
> >
> I would like to put a grain of salt here and would love HTML5 passionates to
> answer:
>  why is the whole HTML5 effort not a movement towards a really enhanced
> parser instead of trying to redefine fully HTML successors?
> Being an enhanced parser (that would use a lot of context info to be really
> hand-author supportive) it would define how to parse better an XHTML 3 page,
> but also MathML and SVG as it does currently... It has the ability to
> specify very readable encodings of these pages.
> It could serve as a model for many other situations where XML parsing is
> useful but its  strictness bytes some.
> Currently HTML5 defines at the same time parsing and the model and this is
> what can cause us to expect that XML is getting weaker. I believe that the
> whole model-definition work of XML is rich, has many libraries, has
> empowered a lot of great developments and it is a bad idea to drop it
> instead of enriching it.
> paul


Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 17:40:09 UTC