Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2

Jonny wrote on Thursday, January 23, 2003 at 11:11:55 AM:

> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 01:42:31 -0600, John Lewis <lewi0371@mrs.umn.edu> 
> wrote:

>>> I don't see a strong reason to take <h1-6> out, and so IMO it
>>> should be preserved for backwards-compatability.

>> XHTML 2.0 isn't supposed to be backwards compatible. I think that's
>> a good argument for keeping h1-h6 in XHTML 1.2 (or whatever it will
>> be called).

> It hasn't set out to be backwards incompatible either.

> I agree that features should have reason to be in XHTML 2.0, but
> there has been given many good use cases for h1-h6, and they cause
> no harm.

I agree. On the other hand, I see no reason for including h1-h6 unless
section and h fall short in certain cases. I'm not aware of anything
like that.

h1-h6 cause no harm, but equally they add no value. There is no good
reason to take them out and there's no good reason to keep them in.
Since XHTML 2.0 makes no effort to be backwards compatible, now is a
good time to take them out. Otherwise, we might as well keep h1-h6 in
XHTML forever--after all, they cause no harm, and there are good use
cases for h1-h6. Those things won't change in the future.

Since I've seen no good reasons for keeping h1-h6 in XHTML 2.0 other
than backwards compatibility, a reason XHTML 2.0 clearly eschews, I
still think they don't belong in XHTML 2.0.

> There are no plans, and no charter, for an XHTML 1.2.

I honestly hope the W3C won't leave authors to jump blindly ahead to
XHTML 2.0 or stick with XHTML 1.0/1.1 until they decide they must move
on. A smooth transition, slowly adding the improvements of XHTML 2.0
and deprecating (undesired) old elements, would be helpful and much
appreciated. Since XHTML 2.0 is clearly not that language, I assumed
there would eventually be an XHTML 1.2 to provide that smooth
transition. I'm surprised there are no plans for one.

-- 
John

Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 03:14:50 UTC