[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:00:51 EST, <AndrewWatt2000@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Another formulation might be, "Starting with a clean sheet of paper, does
> it make sense to develop XHTML further?".
The sheet of paper isn't clean. HTML is the most widely deployed document
format
in history. XHTML would be irrelevant if HTML didn't exist, sure. But
since HTML does
exist, the question is whether to let it ossify or whether to let it
evolve. (Or rather,
to have it evolve at the W3C or have it fragment into pieces that will
evolve separately).
Those who don't like the W3C should think hard about the likely alternative
venues for
the larger fragments of the HTML standard ...a "Web Browser
Interoperability Organization" with RAND-friendly IP rules, maybe? "Hello,
I'm the Devil you know.
I'd like to introduce you to the Devil you don't know. I'm sure you'll hit
it off just fine."
Surely the argument isn't whether to have the "HTML" standard be maintained
in
SGML syntax or in XML syntax? In retrospect, maybe converting to XML
didn't add a whole lot of value to the spec itself, but if it gets Joe
Webmaster to learn the well-
formedness constraints, its a win IMHO :-)
I think I know the agenda of some of the parties
|
