- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <benjaminhawkeslewis@hotmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:46:09 +0100
- To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Hi, This is a comment for "XHTML 2.0" http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/ 2006-07-26 8th WD Extracted from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2006Sep/0030.html May I please have a tracking of this comment. About http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/introduction.html What is XHTML 2.0 for? The draft's introduction says: > HTML 2 is a general purpose markup language designed for representing > documents for a wide range of purposes across the World Wide Web. To > this end it does not attempt to be all things to all people, supplying > every possible markup idiom, but to supply a generally useful set of > elements, with the possibility of extension using the class and role > attributes on the span and div elements in combination with style > sheets, and attributes from the metadata attributes collection. This is a bit vague. One of the nice things about the original HTML 1.0 draft is that it gave some examples of how it could be used [*]: > * Hypertext news, mail, online documentation, and collaborative hypermedia; > * Menus of options; > * Database query results; > * Simple structured documents with inlined graphics. > * Hypertext views of existing bodies of information With the proliferation of markup languages that we have today, I'd like to see such a list make a return in XHTML 2.0. What's more, I would very much appreciate a list of web content where XHTML 2.0 would *not* be suitable markup. For instance, is XHTML 2.0 appropriate for marking up blog posts, news articles, academic papers, critical editions of texts, and web applications? [*] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 10:14:17 UTC