Le lundi 17 juillet 2006 à 13:42 +0100, David Carlisle a écrit :
> How did this thread get hijacked onto MathML?, still...
I think that is has even been hijacked onto HTML 5 and since we are
discussing best technologies that don't win, I am wondering if the best
technology that will loose is supposed to be HTML 5 or XHTML 2.0.
In one of his best pieces, Edd Dumbill once wrote "Don't turn off your
critical faculties because something's a "standard"" [1] and I think
that I have shown that I didn't intend to turn off my critical faculties
concerning the work done by the W3C.
[1] http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/10/24/selfishtag.html
Now that doesn't mean that you shouldn't tell when you think that
standard organisations are doing a good job and I really think that the
refactoring of XHTML that they are doing with XHTML 2.0 is well done and
most useful and I al genuinely surprised to see that so many people are
so negative about XHTML 2.0.
I have also the feeling that the counter proposal known as HTML 5.0 is
very wrong on many points and that it would lead to a "DockBookization"
of XHTML that we need to avoid.
I mean no offense to DocBook which history has led to be what it is now,
but I think that there are much too many different elements that are not
really core and that despite all these elements you still can't express
all that you would need to express.
The only solution to avoid this kind of issues is not to increase but to
reduce the number of elements and add mechanisms to express not only the
style (like it is the case with the class attribute) but also the
intention (or semantics even if this term doesn't mean much any longer)
of elements.
XHTML 2.0 is going in that direction which seems to be the only safe and
wise one while HTML 5 is going in the opposite direction and looks to me
like a regression in many aspects.
In other words, I think that under its appearance of simplicity, HTML
5.0 will lead to more complexity and that the real simplicity is with
XHTML 2.0.
I am curious to see what this list thinks about this.
Eric
--
GPG-PGP: 2A528005
Did you know it? Python has now a Relax NG (partial) implementation.
http://advogato.org/proj/xvif/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=