[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:24:35PM +1100, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> From: <AndrewWatt2000@aol.com>
>
> > What are the characteristics of XHTML 2.0 that make you conclude that XHTML
> > 2.0 is an appropriate way forward?
>
> I am not an XHTML 2.0 boffin, but is Andrew really asking "Why would we want
> a plurality of markup languages in the same area?"
>
> My answer to that would be that, ultimately, people have different personalities
> and different tools. Some people like Python, some people like Java.
I'm not sure the tools argument works for markup languages, especially a
language that is expected to be universally exchangeable. After all, I
can write a network client in Python that will interoperate perfectly
with your Java-based server, as long as they both honor the same
protocol(s). That's a very different matter, isn't it, from adopting a
markup vocabulary that diverse clients are supposed to download and render
in a sensible way?
Seems to me that if we're going to release yet another spec for browsers
to implement, the benefits had better be clear and very significant.
After all, things are just now getting to the point where web developers
can use *CSS1* with a reasonable degree of confidence that the client
will handle it correctly--let alone CSS2, XSLT, XHTML 1.0 ...
Maybe it's time to slow down the specs machine a bit and give the world
a chance to catch up.
--
Matt Gushee When a nation follows the Way,
Englewood, Colorado, USA Horses bear manure through
mgushee@havenrock.com its fields;
http://www.havenrock.com/ When a nation ignores the Way,
Horses bear soldiers through
its streets.
--Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.)
|
