RE: [xml-dev] HTML 5 vs XHTML 2 (was: The Best Technologies Don't Win)

["Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>]

How?  If a data element expresses intention, doesn't it become an
object? Indirection doesn't reduce complexity; it defers it.

If the element has multiple semantics:

O  They should be layered so the element is always interpretable in some
context (how CSS adds to HTML)
O  They should never conflict in the same scope (why namespace URIs are
there)

Isn't that what we have now?

If a single object handles multiple subjective views, it becomes more
complex.  The serialization of such an object will look like the
examples that Rick Jeliffe has in his article at xml.com.   If each view
has its own object, you have multiple elements.   If multiple objects
have to communicate, you have a framework of objects and if they do not
communicate in a rigorously defined way using precisely prescribed
methods, each implementation of that framework will produce different
results.  Now you have a failure to interoperate to the expectations of
the author, or simply put, a lossy system.

The best technologies don't win because the consensus of what is best
for all points of view is always less powerful or more complex than what
is needed for any one of them to be applied at 100% rendering and
behavioral fidelity.

HTML persists because it is easy for the most authors to remember most
of the time and rendering fidelity isn't as forceful as ease of
application in determining propagation (authored pages).  That's all.
(Most people can whistle Yankee Doodle; few can whistle Bach's chorale
for Cantata 147.)  On the other hand, intensity of experience determines
the memorability of the rendering for the viewer. (Mozart survives
better than Salieri because he wrote memorable tunes even if they are
comparatively complex).  

That is why there is no single 'best' solution.  The author has to
determine what is best for the application at hand.

len 


From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@dyomedea.com] 

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.