- From: Andy Holmes <aholmes84@shaw.ca>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 22:28:02 -0700
- To: Arthur Wiebe <webmaster@awiebe.com>, www-html@w3.org
Arthur Wiebe wrote: > Reinthaler, Frank wrote: > >>I agree XHTML is HTML and the root element shouldn't change. >> >>regards, >>Frank Reinthaler >> > I don't agree. XHTML is XML-based and HTML isn't. HTML is the past, > XHTML is the future. I'm not saying XHTML isn't something new or something different, but we aren't reinventing the wheel here. To use a rather simple analogy, we're switching from the old wooden spoked wheels to air inflated rubber tires, but it's still a wheel. > XHTML is designed to work in conjunction with XML-based user agents. > HTML is taken from SGML and works on HTML user agents. XHTML is taken > from XML with a lot of it being just like HTML. > HTML is old. XHTML is it's successor. Changing the root element to > <xhtml> would have advantages. Even if you can't see any at the moment. Like I said, unless you come up with some actual *reason* or *purpose* for changing the name of the root element, it is only a novelty. If a web developer needs a root element to tell him he's writing XHTML, then I think he needs to go read a few more tutorials. > One advantage is that it would lessen confusion. People would know > better if it was XHTML 2, XHTML 1.x, or HTML. And the browsers would too. If a web developer needs a root element to tell him he's writing XHTML, then I think he needs to go read a few more tutorials. As for browsers recognizing XHTML, this is what the application/xhtml+xml mime-type is for. Doing such a thing just encourages bad behaviour such as that which Internet Explorer and Windows in general displays quite clearly by relying on superficial hints like file extensions. > It's to bad it wasn't changed in XHTML 1.0. But we can still change the > future. > <Arthur/> Just because XHTML 2 will be somewhat backwards-incompatible doesn't mean we have to make it even harder for people with older browsers. I think you are taking something trivial and irrelevant and making a big deal out of it. -Andy
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 01:28:06 UTC