- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 12:04:39 +0000 (GMT)
- To: www-html@w3.org
> > Nonetheless, I'm not sure what this has to do with XHTML 2.0 User Agent > Conformance. I think the point is that, to the extent that you can have a popular belief about something as obscure to the general web developing public as XHTML 2.0, the popular belief is that XHTML 2.0 is being created on the understanding that the ancestors of the current popular web browsers will use it. I think you can assume that nearly everyone who is purporting to write XHTML 1.0 now, other than purely for the benefit of their CV[1], is doing so because they have been led to believe that XHTML dialects are the future of the popular web browsers. (These lists will have a disproportionate number of people doing it for other reasons.) People may be making completely wrong decisions, but that is common in this business. I think most current users of HTML use it for reasons other than it is an appropriate language for what they want to do. (HTML is used because of pre-installed thin clients, and because PDF authoring tools were expensive (and Acrobat Reader isn't distributed by Microsoft), and simply because it was once a new fashion.) [1] even those doing it for their CVs are likely doing it because they think that employers believe the browsers are moving that way.
Received on Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:06:43 UTC