[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:24:58 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
wrote:
> [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 seems to me -- in len's terms -- that the whole point of XHTML is to
migrate
the UIVM from hard-coded HTML towards a more general XML processing
model. XML browsers have the potential for recognizing namespaces other
than HTML (as well as other MIME types such as PDF or Flash) for their
extensibility model. This has all sorts of potential advantages, e.g.
self-contained
web pages that have embedded SVG images rather than Web pages that
cause separate HTTP requests for each JPG image. ... or generic XForms
processors. Sheesh, for all the pain that namespaces have created, it would
be really nice to get some tangible gain :-)
Of course, one doesn't NEED HTML semantics built into such an XML-aware
UIVM, but as a practical matter it's needed for legacy reasons (as len
says).
Does XHTML 2.0 take us a workthwhile distance towards this vision? I
dunno.
Why aren't the browser developers supporting it? (Well, Mozilla sortof
does,
and Opera 7 may). Maybe the W3C XHTML folks need to work harder to get the
browser developers on board the way they were in HTML 4.0 days.
I dunno. That will take some diplomacy and dialog, I'm sure ... not to
mention some unpleasant choices between greater and lesser evils.
|
