- From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:36:47 -0800
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Excerpts from Kynn. >> is to realize that EVERYTHING THEY KNOW IS WRONG. > Except that not everything they know -is- wrong. Hyperbole, Kynn. > Is it okay for me to disagree here? Perfectly OK. > They didn't deprecate all the presentational HTML. Transitional > HTML/XHTML is not deprecated. Only as a stopgap measure. > I personally have no idea why you insist on using (X)HTML, which is > clearly a warped presentational language, as some sort of structured > data storage. I think that -you- are fooling yourself and are way > behind the times if you are actually trying to structure content > using the grossly inadequate tools provided for you by (X)HTML. > Me? I consider XML-based dialects to be the -correct- way to store > information in structured form, and XHTML+CSS is simply one presentation > for specific browsers which require that poor format for producing > meaningful display for the users. Agreed. But you've shifted the debate. We were talking about HTML, not about XML and not, I think, about me. Personally, I use databases for storage. But occasionally I don't have that option (or the XML option). Seems like a good idea to me to make it as easy as possible to convert the HTML to XML later. Just because my client won't look ahead, doesn't mean I shouldn't. > Trying to structure content using XHTML and not XML is really like > trying to draw a photo-realistic sunset using an 8-color box of > crayolas, instead of mixing your own paint colors. Golly, I've seen some pretty nice stuff done with crayons though... Charles Munat
Received on Friday, 19 January 2001 04:29:49 UTC