W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2004

[whatwg] Seperation of Content and Interface

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:11:48 +0100
Message-ID: <851c8d3104081903114cca93a0@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:34:28 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:48:33 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> > > If so, why haven't any of the languages that are just that -- e.g. SVG,
> > > XForms, even XHTML -- replaced HTML?
> >
> > because other than XHTML they're in different problem spaces.
> 
> So why hasn't XHTML replaced HTML?

Because as I said below, it offers no benefits, and huge
disadvantages, the mozilla implementation is laughable (no incremental
rendering of HTML!).

> And note that SVG and XForms are in exactly the same problem space as Web
> Apps 1.0, according to the members of those working groups that I've
> spoken to.

Well, I don't know, we've not seen the use cases of Web Apps 1.0, so I
can't really say, it may indeed be true that the combination of the
two are similar to web-apps, but that's different to them being the
same.  As I say though, I don't know enough about web-apps to say.

> > because virtually identical and not supported by browsers provides no
> > motivation to change, exactly the same challenges as WF2 has.
> 
> XHTML is supported by three of the four most popular UA families.

FSVO of support.

> The difference of course is that WF2 is implementable in IE, whereas
> XHTML fundamentally isn't.

Of course XHTML is, IE6 is the best XHTML browser IMO, it renders it
far better than the others, it's incremental, it's fast, the only
problem is you have to jump through hoops to make it even do it
(although I've got a feeling it's not even possible in the current
releases.)

Jim.
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 03:11:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:36 UTC