[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Joshua Allen wrote:
>...
>I also don't understand why the religious devotion to XHTML, when it was
>only a stopgap idea between HTML and XML+XSLT+CSS support; which we
>already have.
>
>
I don't know, XHTML only starts to look iffy when considered in terms of
traditional browsers, as fairly straightforward XML document markup it
seems perfectly reasonable. Even with XML+XSLT+CSS we're dependent on
the rendering engine that gets the transformed/styled end result, still
really in the same boat as with HTML alone.
The references to RSS are interesting, it's rather like Len's case
turned inside out - document islands in a data format. But there the
aggregator points to a completely different species of browser where the
data should (in principle at least) be XML. But content being delivered
in syndicated feeds has to be interpreted somehow, and the options
currently on the table are escaped HTML or nested/namespace-qualified
XHTML. The former is a pretty awful approach when the latter is
available at minimal extra cost (probably less cost, if you factor in
the ambiguity on how material should be extracted, double-unescaping and
so on). But when it comes to displaying the content, whichever way it
comes, existing HTML rendering engines still pretty much have the monopoly.
Cheers,
Danny.
--
Raw
http://dannyayers.com
|
