Re: storing info in XSL-FO: new issue? [was: Draft TAG Finding:...]

Elliotte Rusty Harold napisał(a):
 
> >So you're saying that instead of encouraging better practices on the web, we
> >should introduce/legitimize more complicated ways of encouraging current
> >poor practices?
> 
> No, I'm saying that encouraging better use of HTML is a waste of
> time. The battle's lost. XHTML 1.0 has achieved no significant
> traction. XHTML 2.0 will probably do worse. If you want semantically
> tagged information, jump to pure XML; but accept that HTML is today
> and probably always will be a layout language.

What is its rendering model then? Whatever happens to be the common part
of the rendering models of a few popular browsers? That seems a very
fragile foundation to build upon, taking into account what the future
holds for us with respect to devices that will have no choice but to try
to interpret whatever we mark up for them.
 
> What the W3C says about HTML has little effect on what web sites and
> designers do. The language of HTML is defined by the tools, not by
> the specs. 

The tools change. The tools are buggy and inconsistent. The tools are
incompatible. Personally, I do see a need for a reference model. Perhaps
the members of W3C do, too. After all, isn't W3C about working towards 
a commonly accepted goal? 

[---]
> | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |

-- 
Grzegorz Staniak <gstaniak@ajax.umcs.lublin.pl>

Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 08:39:59 UTC