Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:45:03 -0800, Paul Prescod <email@example.com> wrote:
> Son of Flash or Son of Blackbird would have to have a compelling business
> case for anyone to care about it. Microsoft could not make an
> announcement that they are inventing a hypertext language for markup
> (HTLM) and expect anyone to care.
Yeah, but they can get to Son of Blackbird one little proprietary
enhancement at a time. Or more plausibly, Flash could become more and more
of a generic hypertext language one step at a time. My point is not that we
have to be alert to keep the Evil MS or MM people from embracing and
extinguishing the Web, but that the Web standards have to keep up to keep
the non-evil but frustrated people at big companies from being tempted to
do this. ... and to keep the even more frustrated developers and webmasters
from being tempted to go further away from the universal platform ideal.
> What I don't understand is why XHTML 2 is NOT taking a bold swing at an interesting
> new problem domain. What if it supported rich GUIs? What if it brought
> metadata to the masses? what if it was tightly bound to SVG so that every
> element could be filtered and transformed.
Absolutely agree. I'm thinking of "XHTML 2.x" as a placeholder term for a
language that could do this someday, in partnership with the innovative
browser developers who would implement it. I realize that XHTML 2.0 as
drafted is much more modest, but I want to encourage the people and the
vision, and if we have to move toward the "rich GUIs" goal very
incrementally, so be it. In other words, let's bury the "bug for bug
compatibility with IE 3.0" meme, and if XHTML 2.0 moves us there, that's a
plus. It may be that XHTML 2.0 needs a lot more sizzle to motivate users
and developers to go there, I wouldn't disagree too strongly.