HTML go XML: was Re: [xml-dev] Pragmatic namespaces

[rjelliffe@allette.com.au]

> On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 08:08:45PM +1000, rjelliffe@allette.com.au wrote:

>> (My own opinion is that this is all a side-effect of the W3C's intense
>> desire to avoid anything like a long-term plan or a co-ordinated
>> strategy.
>> For example, what if 2000 the HTML group had decided that by 2010 HTML
>> parsers should accept full XML, including qualified names?

Liam Quinn wrote:

> They (we) did exactly that - the problem is getting Web browsers and
> site developers to follow...

Oh: which HTML spec is this in? Or which TAG finding?

If you are talking about XHTML: that is not what I am suggesting. XHTML is
a variant dialect which excludes syntactical features not in XML, leaving
HTML and XML unchanged. I am suggesting the reverse a medium-term
behind-the-scenes reconciliation (perhaps not unification) of syntax and
API.

This kind of medium-term strategy is not odd in the field: for example, I
know that MS put in forward-looking capabilities into their Office 2007
SP2 so that documents from Office 2010 will cause fewer problems. [The
leadership and various committees in] W3C [if viewed as a notional single
entity by metonymy using normal English formation--happy Michael?] has
long moved from innovation to maintenance: but while they know this is a
long-haul game, the TRs are relentlessly aimed at the current time.

(This is an issue I have brought up before, concerning XML and unicode.
Pre-announcement.) Other standards groups have the same issue, of course.

> So it turns out that it's not that simple.

I am sure it not simple, and don't envy you all! But it is the kind of
thing we should be allowed to expect...

Cheers
Rick