Re: Relevance to HTML 5

Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
>
> On 20 Dec 2007, at 14:48, Dean Edridge wrote:
>
>>
>> ryan wrote:
>>> On Dec 19, 2007, at 6:27 AM, Dean Edridge wrote:
>>>> Have you not heard of "one web" ?
>>>> A XHTML5 web page MUST be accessible to all devices, otherwise how 
>>>> can it be used?
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should just use HTML5 instead?
>>
>> Oh I see. So now you're deciding that XHTML5 is not needed and I best 
>> go and use another language instead?
>> Typical attitude from your crowd.
>>
>>>
>>>> Do you expect people using XHTML5 to use content-negotiation for 
>>>> ever? If so, they will never be able to use the benefits of XHTML5 
>>>> such as embedding SVG into a document.
>>>
>>> SVG is on the list of things to specify in the HTML5 non-xml 
>>> serialization:
>>>
>>> http://www.whatwg.org/issues/
>>
>> Same as above. Not your place to decide that other people don't need 
>> XHTML5.
>>
>>>
>>>> A person should be able to create a web page in XHTML5 and have it 
>>>> supported by *all* user-agents. If not, the whole idea of "one web" 
>>>> gets thrown out the window.
>>>
>>> Why isn't support of HTML5 (non-xml) not enough to have "one web"?
>>
>> It's not for you to decide that I or other people don't need XHTML5 
>> Ryan. The point of having HTML5 and XHTML5 is to give people options.
>
> Half this email seems to be nothing more on than an attack on Ryan. 

Nonsense.

> This doesn't help at all with the development of HTML 5, rather the 
> contrary: it creates an unhelpful attitude within the WG and brings 
> down the signal:noise ratio of emails on public-html.

Get over it Geoffrey! If you don't want me around on the list, fine, go 
and tell Ian and your other mates that have hijacked the group to stop 
trying to deprecate XHTML. I'll be happy to leave once I see evidence of 
this working group being run in a democratic fashion.

> I for one would like to see nothing apart from technical discussions 
> relating to HTML 5 on public-html, as I'm on this mailing list to 
> discuss the development of HTML, NOT people being put in crowds 
> according to certain beliefs they hold. 

Oh be quiet Geoffrey, you talk nonsense. You're crying over spilt milk, 
and you're a drama queen.

> This (i.e., technical discussion of future HTML development) is the 
> very reason public-html exists.
>
> The signal:noise ratio of public-html has at times got so horrifically 
> low that I've considered leaving the WG

You're not the only one.

> : it simply isn't worth dealing with people who just attack 
> one-another. Ryan's reply to yours was totally valid: 

No it most certainly wasn't.

> it addressed all the needs that you stated you need XHTML5 for. 

It's not about "my needs". It's about the world being able to choose 
between HTML5 and XHTML5 in the future.
This choice wont be there if there is no support for 
application/xhtml+xml. But that's what a lot of people close to you want 
isn't it?

> If you had given technical reasons for why you need XHTML5 I'd be 
> happy to hear them; if you just want to talk about the attitude of a 
> "crowd" within the HTML WG do it either in private or not whatsoever. 
> I don't care about it.

Nonsense again.

>
>
> -- 
> Geoffrey Sneddon
> <http://gsnedders.com/>
>
>
>

I have every right to respond to replies like Ryan's, Geoffrey.

When discussing the usability of one language I shouldn't have to put up 
with some smart a%$ kid telling me to just go and use another language.

Dean Edridge

Received on Friday, 21 December 2007 03:25:40 UTC