Re: [xml-dev] What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?

[AndrewWatt2000@aol.com]

In a message dated 19/11/2002 16:23:16 GMT Standard Time, simonstl@simonstl.com writes:


> AndrewWatt2000@aol.com writes:
> >I know that there are several supporters of XTHML 2.0 on the list and
> >at least one or two who are actively involved in its development.
> >
> >I would like to ask the straightforward question: "What are the
> >strongest arguments for continuing development of XHTML 2.0?".
> >
> >What are the characteristics of XHTML 2.0 that make you conclude that
> >XHTML 2.0 is an appropriate way forward?
>
> Like Rick Jelliffe, I'm somewhat confused about what you're asking here,
> so I'll just take my best shot. 


Simon,

Thanks for the reply. Sorry that the question wasn't clear.

Let me try again.

I was trying ask a searching question in as non-biased and assumption-free a way as possible. Here is a reformulation:

"If you were to approach the question of the future or not of XHTML making no assumptions that XHTML is 'obviously' a good thing and making no assumptions about whether continuing evolution of what we typically think of as 'Web browsers' is going to continue in evolutionary development [versus some possible step change in the nature of the Web client] what reasons do you believe exist to support XHTML 2.0 as being an appropriate solution for the next few years?".

Sorry. Reading that reformulation it sounds very pompous. But hopefully it will be clearer.

Another formulation might be, "Starting with a clean sheet of paper, does it make sense to develop XHTML further?".

I want to hold back on responding to the specifics of your response for a day or two. I genuinely want to see what weight of argument (as opposed to numbers of opinions) exists to support continuing development of XHTML 2.0.

Andrew Watt