- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:52:27 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Bill McCoy wrote: > > I basically agree with you. There are multiple paths to building apps: > "Street HTML" (as Opera calls it) and (as you call it) "XML Soup". There's at least one more -- valid, conformant HTML. > I happen to believe that "Street HTML" just won't cut it for building > rich interactive clients that are highly usable (by the ultimately > users, end users not developers), and that the best "worse is better" > foundation lies in the XML technologies that have been established in > recent years (XHTML among them), and that promoting these technologies > would be better for the open/web community than letting proprietary > tools win. Clearly a number of people on this list do not agree. We will > see. Personally I agree with you, which is why the WHATWG specs are XML-based (albeit the option to use an HTML syntax if compatibility with IE or existing content is desired). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 10:52:27 UTC