- From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:57:56 -0500
- To: "Christian Wolfgang Hujer" <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
> [Original Message] > From: Christian Wolfgang Hujer <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com> > > And believe me, as soon as there's a Content-Type and a > User Agent for XHTML 2.0, I will use it. Why? The biggest hurdle that XHTML 2 faces is that there is that for most people it does nothing that cannot be done with XHTML 1.1 or even HTML 4.01. Unless an author feels a need to use XForms or XEvents, the only reason I see in the present draft for using XHTML 2 is to make techies such as ourselves feel good. Modest tweaks and the <nl> element are not sufficient IMO to warrant using XHTML 2 when using XHTML 1.1 or HTML4.01 (sans presentational elements such as <i> of course) can do the job and can be understood by a wider variety of user agents. I still default to using HTML 4.01unless I need one of the features of XHTML or am mixing in some other XML specification. XHTML2 may be a tighter spec than XHTML1 or HTML, but I can achieve tightness on mine own by simply using a subset of the existing specs. Indeed, the subset of HTML 4.01 that I use is almost XHTML 1.1except for using lang instead of xml:lang and the lack of ending /'s on empty elements.
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2003 15:57:58 UTC