W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2002

RE: Is XHTML a dead end?

From: Didier PH Martin <martind@netfolder.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:07:52 -0400
To: <Svgdeveloper@aol.com>, <mc@xegesis.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000c01c265a0$c7c2f290$c801a8c0@didierhome>

Hi Andrew,

Andrew said:
I could make this a very lengthy post but I think the bald question, "Is
XHTML worth persevering worth?" encapsulates the questioning of a
perhaps dearly held assumption. It's an assumption worth examining in
detail in my view.

Didier replies:
Or to move on with new versions of XHTML, then we can say, give me some
reasons to follow my cheese when someone moved it :-) XHTML 1.0 is OK
for the status quo. Most of the web will stick to HTML for some time,
maybe a decade. We should never under-estimate the time it takes to get
people to follow their cheese. It took nearly 8 years for window to
reach the tipping point and we start to see massive movement from DOS to
windowed environments. People moved mainly because of the 10X
improvement factor Andy Grove like to mention. 

To go back to the issue, why not exploring the possibility that href
becomes a reserved word to express a link. Thus xlink:href and href
would be considered as equivalent. This also would imply that not more
than one link attribute could reside in a single tag. But hey, does
anybody in the HTML WG knows how to spell compromise? And what if the
compromise gave me some incentive to follow my cheese when someone moved
it :-0 what if the compromise gave me something new, new possibilities?
(ref: my previous post about XHTML with XSLT)

Didier PH Martin
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 17:07:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:54 UTC