|
|
Re: [xml-dev] What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 20/11/2002 19:34:44 GMT Standard Time, clbullar@ingr.com writes:
http://www.blogstream.com/pauls/1034787029 doesn't return a page
for me, but if this is Paul's refutation of the "browser is dead" thread,
it is a good statement of the UIVM idea, long on politics, but it is a blog.
Len,
Yep, that's the one.
If you persist in trying to connect with Blogstream you *eventually* get a page.
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.
I wonder, if he is still interested in the topic, if he would comment about whether he sees XHTML as a key ingredient in this mix or if, possibly, he mentions XHTML as much out of habit as anything.
If Paul sees XHTML as a key ingredient in the mix that might address aspects of the question I want to explore.
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.
I am disappointed that so few real responses have engaged with the question.
But I am confident that the question won't go away. I suspect that we are about to enter a period of user agent turmoil when a very great deal of what, until recently, we might have accepted as given will come into question.
Andrew Watt
"XHTML 2.0 - the W3C leading the Web to its full potential ... to implement yesterday's technology tomorrow"
|
|
|
|
|
|