- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:15:50 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>, HTMLWG Tracking WG <public-html@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen wrote: > ... >> I don’t think this is a good idea. If you allow <CIRCLE CX=40> to be >> the same thing as <circle cx=”40″/> eventually we’ll start to see >> people producing non-compliant SVG in the wild. > > We can define it as compliant SVG in text/html. I think that's exactly what Jeff doesn't want to happen. >> just like the mess we have now with browsers trying to understand as >> much content as they can in order to compete. > > It's not a mess where there's a detailed parser spec. Disagreed: it's still a big mess, just one with a detailed description. > And, yet, XML is consistently failing on the Web. XML is succeeding in > enterprise system integration. But the moment people try to produce > XHTML or RSS, it is revealed that XML is too hard for the kind of mass > authoring that text/html works for. FUD. XHTML and RSS are extremely bad examples, because they suffer from clients that do not use XML parsers. Atom, for instance, works much better. > That would lose the non-Draconianness property of text/html. Draconian > error handling, namespaces and DTDs are the three major failings of XML. Two of them are the reasons why it *does* work so well. > I recommend anyone who still thinks xmlns is a good idea to look at the > 10th anniversary threads on xml-dev. > Even well-knows XML people say that namespaces are > * "controversial" > http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200802/msg00146.html > * "done badly" http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200802/msg00149.html > * presumably needing "fixing" > http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200802/msg00221.html > > Also check out the comment from David Megginson over at Tim Bray's blog: > http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2007/09/14/Lousy-Aggregators > > Considering that even XML folks admit Namespaces in XML is bad, it would > be silly for us not to try to shield hapless HTML authors from the > badness to the extent possible. It would be interesting to see what a better solution would have been. I think the problems with namespaces are well understood, but that doesn't mean it is simple to do things better. >> Maybe it’s because I’m used to writing SVG, but I really don’t have a >> problem with the concept of mixed namespace content. > > I have a problem with namespace URIs every single time I need to deal > with XHTML, SVG, etc. I always have to waste time looking up and URI to > copy and paste because trying to go by memory and getting it wrong > (which year? trailing slash?) would waste even more time. I fail to see how this is a problem. Is copy & paste too hard? >> In fact, all browsers except for IE can handle application/xhtml+xml >> MIME type these days, so it really seems to me that the verdict’s >> still out on whether XHTML is a good technology or not. > > Even if XHTML is good technology as far as pure technology value goes > with network effect considerations, XHTML flunks Technology Strategy 101 > by failing to plug into the existing the network of the text/html > installed base. Not sure what this means. > ... BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 10 March 2008 20:16:23 UTC