- From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:09:24 +0200
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- CC: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org
> XHTML Basic has no real purpose except to support the XHTML Mobile Profile, as far as I am concerned. there you go. A written confession. You don't give a damn about mobile. > The working group loves to get input from the community. We plan on publishing an updated > public working draft very soon. If you have comments or concerns, please let us know! well, I have ideas. But they are most likely incompatible with the mentality I am seeing around here to be taken into consideration. Anyway, getting the style attribute undeprecated would be a good start. Luca Shane McCarron wrote: > > > Luca Passani wrote: >> Migrating from XHTML 1.X to XHTML 2.0? >> >> what I think you are missing is that XHTML 2.0 does not seem to have >> a chance in heaven to replace XHTML 1.X/HTML as it is being used >> today. Way too different. Whoever builds XHTML 2.0 apps (for >> whatever reason) will necessarily do it by building them from >> scratch, and not by migrating existing web apps. So, what's the point >> in having this petty feature creep in late versions of a completely >> different standard? >> If you ask me, someone here isn't understanding developers. > Dude.... we are developers. These features were added to XHTML Basic > because the OMA and the XHTML MP people asked us to put them in. And > we put them in the way we were asked to. XHTML Basic has no real > purpose except to support the XHTML Mobile Profile, as far as I am > concerned. > > W.r.t. XHTML 2.0 - it is not a big step from 1.1 - except perhaps > philosophically. It incorporates the actual definitions of the > elements and attributes, which is an editorial change. It also > extends the language in ways that make it easier to do structured > markup should you choose to do so. I imagine it will ultimately > deprecate some features that run counter to its structured markup > goals (e.g. h1). But I expect that in the end everything you can do > in XHTML 1.1 or XHTML Basic 1.1 you will be able to do in XHTML 2. > We're not idiots, and we have a lot of content and applications of our > own that we want to continue to work with minimal effort when the time > comes to convert. > > The working group loves to get input from the community. We plan on > publishing an updated public working draft very soon. If you have > comments or concerns, please let us know! >
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 15:10:08 UTC