Lists Home |
Date Index |
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Paul Prescod) writes:
> >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.
> Speaking as someone who's been using HTML for about eight years, I
> have to say I can't really imagine why I'd want any of those things
> directly in XHTML. XUL is interesting stuff, SVG is interesting stuff,
> and RDF is interesting stuff, but those are all things that go well
> with XHTML, notthings that need to be bonded tightly with XHTML.
That's a fair point of view. But are you willing to accept there may be
a day when the problems XHTML set out to solve are considered to be
> I think there's already an experiment which attempted "bold new ideas
> for the Web", and I have to say its failure in that area has been
> rather catastrophic. Five years on I'm only starting to see Web
> developers consider XML a benefit rather than a nuisance, and XSLT's
> learning curve a plus rather than a minus. I've yet to see anyone
> outside the XML community even express an interest in XLink or XPointer.
How will they feel about yet more XML stuff shoved down their throat in
XHTML 2 if there is no clearly articulated vision of how it will make
their lives easier or better?
> >From the (20, not counting my postings) responses I got on webdesign-l
> last night, there are certainly people who find what XHTML 2.0 is doing
> to be interesting.
Please elaborate. _What_ do they find interesting? What problems do they
have that XHTML 2 will solve?
> There are also some who find XHTML 2.0 as relevant
> as CSS 3.0 - in other words, not. I found no sentiment suggesting that
> XHTML 2.0 should be halted. I also found little sentiment favoring more
> radical change than what's been proposed.
I didn't ask for it to be halted. I asked for it to have a clear
statement of goals and acceptance requirements.
> I'm not sure the XML community is a reasonable barometer for what is
> or is not appropriate to the future of (X)HTML, and perhaps for once
> we should leave such decisions to people who are actually focused on
I use HTML most days as I'm sure, do many other people on the list.