[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> With great respect to Jeni, I think that something has gotten lost here (I
> do not mean in her example, just the whole discussion the way it has
> developed). If xhtml is supposed to be a replacement or follow-on to more
> or less replace html, then its hyperlinks MUST BE SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND AND
> USE. Or at least, ordinary everyday hyperlinks must be. Otherwise this new
> facility will not get used, or it will be used wrongly and sour the majority
> of web page developers on using it - back to html 4.0, at least it works and
> we can understand it.
...
> If we cannot get to a **really simple** syntax to express these notions, one
> that will be clear to most non-specialists and non-nerd html authors, we
> better forget it right now.
Maybe, but maybe not. The unfortunate fact is that the only people who
get to choose which UI-oriented Web technologies people are exposed to
is a small group of management and programmers in Redmond. (The server
side is different thank goodness). If this group of godlike individuals
had implemented extended links in the browser a couple of years ago,
quite likely everybody would have said "that's cool, how did they do
that?", done a 'view source'" and just started doing it.
Given the current power structure in our industry, all this talk on
xml-dev about what people might and might not learn pretty well remains
theorizing in absence of evidence. -Tim
|
