- From: Todd Fahrner <fahrner@pobox.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 20:07:37 -0800
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
Chris Lilley wrote: [snip - lots of stuff I understand and agree with] So hooray for XML! I'm neither surprised nor especially disappointed at this confirmation that mainstream Web browser developers have never thought about their paychecks and ISO 8879 in the same lifetimes. The point of my post is that the following passages from the WD are misleading, and should be modified or stricken: "Although there is no requirement for XHTML 1.0 documents to be compatible with existing user agents, in practice this is easy to accomplish." Whitewash. Suggest adding "in many cases." "HTML Tidy ... offers a means to smoothly transition existing HTML documents to XHTML." Unless said documents contain minimized attributes. "Transmitting an XHTML document using the Internet Media Type text/html will help support a smooth transition from HTML to XHTML and encourage its early adoption. An XHTML document transmitted using this type is likely to be processed in the usual way be [sic] existing user agents." I suppose you could say that since "the usual way" is largely undefined, it still is. <g> "Although overlapping is illegal in SGML, it was widely tolerated in SGML-based browsers." SGML-based browsers? Unintended comic effect? (I couldn't resist.) > Not really - just serve it up as application/xml and any XML compliant, > CSS compliant application will display it. Hm - "just" and "any" imply trivially that my mom can download such an application by clicking on the appropriate animated GIF in her portal of choice. I fully support the development of such applications (!!!), but am not convinced that they can be hastened into broad deployment by such wishful statements. IMO, W3C stands to lose further credibility as a source of practical information among Web developers by making such claims. -- Todd Fahrner mailto:fahrner@pobox.com Standardization, instead of individualization. Cheap books, instead of private-press editions. Active literature, instead of passive leather bindings. - Jan Tschichold, 1930
Received on Sunday, 28 March 1999 23:07:45 UTC