- From: Vipul S. Chawathe <Engineer@VipulSChawathe.ind.in>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 03:12:07 +0530
- To: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
>From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] >To: Henri Sivonen >On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> Hixie wrote in https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18669#c31 : >> > I think it's fine for this not to work in XML, or require XML >> > changes, or use an attribute like xml:component="" in XML. It's not >> > going to be used in XML much anyway in practice. I've already had >> > browser vendors ask me how they can just drop XML support; I don't >> > think we can, at least not currently, but that's the direction >> > things are going in, not the opposite. > >> This attitude bothers me. A lot. > >> I understand that supporting XML alongside HTML is mainly a burden for >> browser vendors and I understand that XML currently doesn't get much >> love from browser vendors. >Not just browser vendors. Authors rarely if ever use XML for HTML either. >> Still, I think that as long as browsers to support XHTML, we'd be >> worse off with the DOM-and-above parts of the HTML and XML >> implementations diverging. >Sure, but if on the long term, or even medium term, they don't continue to support XHTML, this is no longer a problem. It's okay for authors who leave deploying content to publisher to stop with looking at html appearance from browser to users. Xhtml's fewer publishers maybe bonded abit over-tightly with it if their quantity is lesser considering how helpful transforms are. Repetitive content over-counted is more likelier for html than transformable xml serializations. The publisher may favour plug-ins for flash, jvm, Silverlight and whichever else. However, small publishers who are impacted by semantic significance of content grasped by search engine, oft deliver same data using link tag with rel="alternate" attribute than difficult to index proprietary plug-in based formats. The alternate representation might be atom, rdf, ... using grddl xslt or some such html sibling spec, so xhtml may not be well-supported but vanilla support is another matter. For my personal interest, I'm looking forward to seamless iframes, though styled iframe does hide the frame appearance for javascript that breaks on main xhtml page, and place it in another page that's plain html. My point is, if the spec can be precise w. r. t. DOM to avoid usability breakage in xhtml, then the spec hopefully will be precise, leaving aside when xhtml should be considered dead to user-supporters at present.
Received on Friday, 11 January 2013 21:41:02 UTC