OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



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

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

From: AndrewWatt2000@aol.com [mailto:AndrewWatt2000@aol.com]

One of the things that struck me about the blog ... maybe coloured by the question I am asking ... is how little mention XHTML gets from Paul.

[len]  Paul is attempting to defuse or refute the assertion that the browser is dead, not defend XHTML.  The browser isn't dead insofar as
lots of people use them, but mostly, they use one.  IMO, once the browser wars ended and it became apparent that endlessly extending
XHTML was a non-starter, the browser was effectively dead in evolutionary terms.   Again, still in use but not advancing.    Can a non-HTML centric
web browser succeed?  Hard question.   Typically, generic SGML browsers (a la IADS) had to be setup for the document types they
would handle.   This was done in the stylesheets.   It took a lot of expert work and therefore, can't be expected of the general population of
web consumers.  So when I say, the war is over, the browser lost, this is not a put down of web browsers in general, but the observation
that in the absence of competition, in a millieu where the browser is free, and given a framework where special needs XML can be
met with special purpose easy to build XML clients, there isn't a lot of environmental pressure to improve the HTML browser.  The
assumption that an XML generic browser should be developed that will handle any XML defies technical logic.  Why do it?  Who
could support it?  Open source?  Ok, have at.  Maybe it really is a way to hack into the desktop hegemony, or maybe it is a way to 
build a dull performing but generalized XML client.   If it requires the kind of setups its historical antecedents needed, it's DOA. 
And so it goes.
The critical problem, market wise, is the legacy.   Otherwise, does XHTML 
have the right stuff?  The question is simply, as you put it, are there enough
advantages to make the pain of adoption worthwhile?   I don't know.  

I take that comment to confirm that it is at least legitimate to ask the question about what value further development of XHTML 2.0 may or may not have.
[len] I consider it a legitimate question but one either has to frame it in a context of XHTML vs HTML (are the improvements in the language worth the pain of adopting it), or in the overall framework of XML in which the notion of the UIVM as a means of handling any XML via transformation or datasets has been thoroughly explored.   It wasn't found wanting; it works, but over time, it becomes cumbersome (ever smaller niches). 

I am disappointed that so few real responses have engaged with the question.

[len] It's been a snippy list of late.  Watching Pam depart after rude handling didn't say too much good for the attitudes here.   I sense list fatigue.  Maybe hairy haiku season is upon us to return us to the sillyness that keeps us able to handle the seriousness.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS