[
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.
| 