- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:38:51 -0800
- To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "'WAI Interest Group \(E-mail\)'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 2:06 AM -0800 1/19/01, Charles F. Munat wrote: >Kynn again: >"XHTML, including modularization? Why would you want to teach anyone >such obsolete technologies anyway? A true curriculum designed for >the 21st century would not be using 20th century concepts such as >"XHTML modules" when you really should start with XML, which is easier >to understand and use anyway." >It's going to come as a real shock, I think, to the people who just spent >all that time and effort modularizing XHTML to discover that their work is >obsolete already. I'll alert the WG. Charles, feel free -- I've said as much on the XHTML-L mailing list too. I hope I don't upset the XHTML working group, but I don't feel that what they are producing is going to go anywhere. >Considering that the majority of web pages aren't even up to HTML 3.2 yet, I >think there may be a future for XHTML. But yes, I can hardly wait to shift >to XML and XSLT. I disagree, I think that if/when those 3.2 pages get up to snuff, it will be so far out that they will jump directly to XML/XSLT and not even bother with XHTML. I have some old pages on my web site now. They're in HTML, probably 3.2, maybe not even valid. I can't picture why I -- or anyone else -- would want to spent the time to change them to XHTML, when XML is a much more attractive solution. (I will and do write XSLT to create XHTML, but that's pretty much different from what we're talking about here, I think.) --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Friday, 19 January 2001 11:55:57 UTC