Re: Comments on XHTML 2.0 Working Draft

Chris Croome <chris@webarchitects.co.uk> writes:

> On Sun 11-Aug-2002 at 01:46:32PM +0200, Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
> > 
> > Any way, going for the use of PI's to reference non structural
> > external info would "pave the way" for a removal of the 'link'
> > element too :)
> 
> There was quite a bit of discussion of the TAG about the use of PIs
> and the consensus seemed to be that new uses of them would not be a
> good idea, nor would getting rid of them. 

Sounds like a reasonable TAG conclusion.

If "script" is going to survive at all, I think the PI approach is
probably the best option since it involves no specific expectation for
either markup or client behavior.

But the whole idea of client-side processing tied to publicly-served
default-format web pages [as indicated by mimetype :-)] has presented
unacceptable network security risks from the start.

In the context of <script> much extant practice is unnecessary, and
none of it is acceptable from the viewpoint of network security as
long as there is a significant presence of platforms without both
(1) adequate protection from memory over-writing and (2) a reliable
well-tested (also IMHO "open source") library base.

                                    -- Bill

Received on Sunday, 11 August 2002 16:21:43 UTC