W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2008

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

From: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:17:00 +1300
To: "Preston L. Bannister" <preston@bannister.us>
Cc: ryan <ryan@theryanking.com>, Shawn Medero <soypunk@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <478636EC.9020209@55.co.nz>

Preston L. Bannister wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007 7:30 PM, Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz 
> <mailto:dean@55.co.nz>> wrote:
>     Preston L. Bannister wrote:
>     > On Dec 19, 2007 3:36 AM, Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz
>     <mailto:dean@55.co.nz>
>     > <mailto: 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?

> Millions of people use web pages - not HTML or XHTML.  In the browser 
> XHTML offers no advantage over HTML.

Really? Who told you this?

> In /eternity/ my original background in Physics is more relevant than 
> software :).  In software, yes, I do spend a fair amount of time 
> predicting the future - at least in general outline, in very specific 
> domains.  To a fair extent the future is indeed predictable, and I've 
> done moderately well at such predictions.
>     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.
> The advantage to XHTML lies in server-side XML-based processing 
> pipelines, not in the browser.

That's just your opinion, and I think it happens to be untrue  :)

> Once you come to that realization, then you have to ask whether a 
> server-side rendering to HTML is in fact the /more/ optimal choice.
>     > 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?
> Yep.  Some predictions are not hard - at least in this /very/ specific 
> domain.

But it's not a very specific domain. This is where I think you are over 
looking the possible uses of XHTML, and the uses of "the web" in the future.

> We have lots of experience in the field of software, and some 
> predictions based on out past collective experience are easy.  We need 
> a well-defined and well-supported lowest-level language for 
> communicating the structure of a web page from a server to the 
> browser.  HTML is that representation.  We do not need more than one. 
>     > 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.
> Yes.  Clearly we disagree.

What is there to disagree on?
There are only two reasons why you would omit "XHTML5" from the title of 
the spec.
1) Because the main forces behind the spec would like to have XHTML 
2) Because people are afraid of upsetting the feelings of the XHTML2 
working group.

Neither of these reasons warrant leaving out the name "XHTML5" from the 
spec title. The omission of "XHTML5" from the spec title (as it is now) 
will of course lead to the demise of XHTML due to XHTML5 not ever 
becoming an official language.

Dean Edridge
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 15:17:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:25 UTC