W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > May to June 2001

Re: XHTML's reception (was Re: TAG and WWW Architecture)

From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:32:59 -0400 (EDT)
To: www-talk@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0106230017170.20140-100000@info.q2.net>
On 6 Jun 2001, Simon St.Laurent wrote:

> Based on both [XHTML-L] list experience and my sales, I'd suggest
> that XHTML is a technology without an audience at this point.

That's a good thing, IMHO.

> I do see the occasional <br />, but that's about it.

Because that's about the sum of what "works".  Going forward, the
prime determinant will be what the popular "HTML user agents" will be
willing to "accept".  For instance, consider item C.4 in the so-called
Compatibility Guidelines ( http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines ),

:  Note that XML parsers are permitted to silently remove the contents
:  of comments. Therefore, the historical practice of "hiding" scripts
:  and style sheets within comments to make the documents backward
:  compatible is likely to not work as expected in XML-based
:  implementations.

Now, since XML doesn't have a concept of CDATA declared content, the
only way to inline scripts is put them in CDATA marked sections, which
in turn is guaranteed *not* to work in existing "HTML user agents".
Therefore, inline scripts will never be put in CDATA marked sections.  
Much the greater likelihood will be, ahem, "market pressure", to
*recognize* script content within "comment tags".  All it will take is
for a popular implementation to oblige.  Specs or no specs, a fait
accompli and a shrug of the shoulders will be enough to dispense with
the "likely to not work as expected in XML-based implementations".

Which is to say, XHTML is an open invitation to introduce the same
disasters into text/xml as have made a complete mishmash of text/html.

Received on Saturday, 23 June 2001 00:19:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 20 January 2020 16:08:25 UTC