- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: 31 May 2002 21:04:58 -0400
- To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 20:46, Keith Moore wrote: > XML users may be different than HTML users. HTML is mostly written > for eyeballs. Raise the barrier for XHTML too high, and it won't > get used as widely as you'd like. I'm have no idea at all why you believe this. Most of the HTML newbies I talk with these days are using tools, quite definitely. Tool-vendors seem quite capable of figuring out how XHTML works. Why don't they? Why should they. Browsers fix it all for them. Most of the HTML handcoders I know are the very same people cheering for XHTML, as it reduces their prospective headaches on cross-browser solutions and especially on Dynamic HTML. They also tend to produce the kind of code that Tidy cleans up almost magically. I know a few people who doing bad work with templates (ASP, CGI, etc.), but I also know that they test their work quite extensively - it's not like they just dump it on users to to see what happens. They'd catch on pretty quickly. It's way past time to get past the extensive damage done to the Web and its prospects for a future by leaving "what happens when things aren't right" in the hands of vendors who want to make everything all right all the time. Is Web architecture just a bunch of drawings? Or are we trying to create something solid here? -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2002 15:12:34 UTC