[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
AndrewWatt2000@aol.com wrote:
>
> Len,
>
> Yep, that's the one.
>
> If you persist in trying to connect with Blogstream you *eventually*
> get a
> page.
If you think that's bad, imagine being on the INSIDE of that connection.
I'll move that essay to my external wsp soon...my wife says "what's the
use in being married to a computer expert if he can't make your Internet
connection reliable?" I have no good answer. Er, that's not true. My
answer was: "try unplugging the network cable from the machine that's
serving the blog. That might be the one causing problem."
> 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.
XHTML could evolve into something exciting and new, but right now, to me
it looks like a nip and tuck. I'd love to see XHTML 2.0 or 3.0 be
essentially XHTML+XUL. But I would also be okay if SVG 2.0 is SVG+XUL.
As long as we get an interface development language into the standard
browser stack, I will be happy.
If XHTML's developers want to spend their effort on a nip and tuck, who
am I to complain? Incremental changes can have benefits over the long term.
Paul Prescod
|
