Re: Deciding in public (Was: SVGWG SVG-in-HTML proposal)

'order-of-magnitude smaller' was a poor choice and not meant to be
inflammatory.  My assertion has to do simply with my understanding of
global browser market share.  The market share of XHTML-aware browsers
has only recently (within the last two years) come into something that
I would term 'significant' (above the 10 percent mark).

On the other hand, the percentage of users using XHTML-aware browsers
on my site is over 50%.  I serve XHTML+SVG to those who can consume it
and let my content (c)rudely fall back to text/html for IE.

Regards,
Jeff Schiller

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)
<P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear Jeff -- Although I do not entirely agree with
> your analysis (I do not believe it goes far enough :
> "mixing existing languages on web pages" is far
> short of the extensibility that I and others long
> for), I would like to ask you to clarify one
> point : on what basis do you assert that
> "the potential audience/readership [of XHTML] is
>  an order-of-magnitude smaller" ?
>
> Philip TAYLOR
> --------
> Jeff Schiller wrote:
>
>> a) I think most of the members of the WG believe the ability to mix
>> existing languages on web pages (SVG, MathML) inside HTML is a good
>> idea.  [...]
>
>> We cannot definitively say why XHTML has not been successful on the
>> web - is it because of the less-forgiving XML syntax or is it because
>> the potential audience/readership is an order-of-magnitude smaller?
>
>> [...]
>

Received on Friday, 1 August 2008 22:45:34 UTC