[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* Joshua Allen wrote:
>There is no point even having a conversation with someone who tries to
>argue that the market for XHTML tools is even close to as mature as for
>HTML.
I guess I should apologize for beeing more interested in facts than
applauding to your personal opinion then.
>Staggering lack of user-empathy. 99% of people writing web pages do not
>care whether it validates in some markup validator. This is not what
>people care about.
So people do not care about how broken HTML tools are but should care a
lot about how broken XHTML tools are. That does not make all that much
sense to me.
>Ugh; I'll repeat myself verbatim: "Users should either stick with HTML;
>or if they want to have a pure machine-processable architecture, move to
>XML+XSLT+CSS."
>
>How is that confusing?
Well, you still fail to explain how this XML+XSLT+CSS thing serves as a
replacement for HTML or is better than using XHTML which seems to be
your point. CSS is clearly relevant to such users, but your argument so
far is that XML is not relevant as otherwise XHTML would seem to be very
relevant spite your claim and how XSLT is relevant you still have to
explain. It seems to me you are just trying to distract from the
original discussion by introducing new use cases.
|
