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

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

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@btinternet.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 02:32:05 +0100
To: "Arjun Ray" <aray@q2.net>, <www-talk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFIEPEDKAA.danny.ayers@btinternet.com>
I done a lot of HTML. I done a lot of XML. I went into a bookshop looking
for something that made XHTML work - nope. Ok, so there's going to be a
growing proportion of pages (mainly dynamically generated) but 3.2 ain't
going away yet. I came away from the bookshop with O'Reilly's pocket HTML 4,
I already had the XML pocket one, which looks dated.

Danny Ayers

>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-talk-request@w3.org [mailto:www-talk-request@w3.org]On Behalf
>Of Arjun Ray
>Sent: 23 June 2001 05:33
>To: www-talk@w3.org
>Subject: Re: XHTML's reception (was Re: TAG and WWW Architecture)
>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 21:37:10 UTC

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