RE: Simplicity of Authoring and Accessibility Tools

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 Bartlett <>

Received on Friday, 19 January 2001 11:55:57 UTC