[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I
think big companies like IBM and etrade would be motiviated to use a feature
like this so one knows "a page is from IBM" or "a page is from etrade" without
having to got through the expensive and uncacheable SSL method. They in
turn would need to influence browser vendors.
In
a message dated 15/04/02 22:07:03 GMT Daylight Time, Doug.Ransom@pwrm.com
writes:
I thought of a little carrot that might help improve the HTML
developer
affinity for XHTML: Signed XHTML. If XHTML pages
were signed in a specific
manner with using x.509 based PKI, browsers
could inform users they can
trust the content of the page.
Doug,
What makes you think that your suggestion
would improve acceptance of XHTML?
What is your analysis of the
barriers/discouragements operate for a "typical" HTML developer even
contemplating adopting XHTML? How does your suggestion help the vast majority
of HTML developers who exist in a world outside XML geekdom?
I spend
most of my time with XML but, to be frank, fail to see the "carrot" in your
suggestion for a typical HTML developer.
Andrew Watt
|
