|
|
Re: [xml-dev] The truth about standards...
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 18/11/2002 22:09:12 GMT Standard Time, dareo@microsoft.com writes:
PS: Reading the linked Zeldman.com article I couldn't help but be
puzzled by "XHTML 1.0 brought consistent rules to traditional web markup
and helped it play well with XML applications. These standards made
sense because they solved real problems.". In hindsight, are there
people who truly believe XHTML 1.0 solved any real problems besides
making HTML buzzword compliant? Honest question not flamebait.
Dare,
This topic was the subject of a lively debate on XHTML-L a few weeks back.
I think some of that list were pretty horrified when the issue of the value of XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.0 was really pushed. The advantages of XHTML 1.0 are pitifully few ... to many average Web developers. Having a gold star from W3C which states "Your page is XHTML compliant" or whatever it does say isn't an impressive reason for moving to XHTML 1.0.
It might also help to understand Jeffrey Zeldman's comments to appreciate that he is a Web *designer* who is currently using Flash routinely. Not that there is anything much intrinsically wrong with using Flash ... apart from the fact it isn't SVG. <grin/> So, I hope I am not being unfair here, his horizons for standards are primarily XHTML, DOM and CSS. The subset of standards that make it into his horizons is very much a Web designer's subset. So, for the range of work he does it is simply factual to state that more than a few W3C specifications are irrelevant to his daily work needs.
Now in time XForms will impinge on his horizons and I do wonder what his opinion will prove to be on those. :)
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|