Once again: effects in Migration HTML 4.01 -> XHTML 1.0

[Brian]

Re: Once again: effects in Migration HTML 4.01 -> XHTML 1.0

Philipp Lenssen wrote:
[color=blue]
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>[color=green]
>> There was never a reason to move away from HTML 4
>>
>> currently XHTML is just an exercise.[/color]
>
> See, that's just what kids do when they start to walk and fall.[/color]

(I hate contrived metaphors.)
[color=blue]
> You might say they gained nothing by switching from walking on arms
> and legs to walking up straight using just their legs.[/color]

Except that XHTML is not walking upright. It's the same crawling that
HTML offered, only with new impediments that weren't there with HTML.
[color=blue]
> then you will never see any evolution in HTML which actually _will_
> serve the Web one day.[/color]

Some www technologies have been adopted: CSS is used increasingly
because it solves problems. XHTML does not solve any problems that I can
see. So why change?
[color=blue]
> XHTML is intended to do just that. Switching to it today ensures that
> one day, HTML will work better than it does now.[/color]

That's optimistic of you. But I think I'll stick with HTML.

--
Brian

[Jim Ley]

Re: Once again: effects in Migration HTML 4.01 -> XHTML 1.0

On 6 Apr 2004 15:04:58 GMT, "Philipp Lenssen" <info@outer-court.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> XHTML is intended to do
>just that. Switching to it today ensures that one day, HTML will work
>better than it does now.[/color]

Yep that was the theory, but as you note it doesn't serve me an
individual any better being the person that breaks vases.

In any case I can get all the benefits (if indeed there are any) in
moving to XHTML 2.0 by moving to XHTML 2.0 - I don't have to take
incremental steps in between, unlike learning to walk, where the
intermediate steps are essential.

In any case with future W3 specs such as XBL, and SVG 1.2, the
rendering and the semantic format of your mark-up can become much more
distinct, this with render XHTML 2.0 obsolete in the face of more
specific vocabularies that are actually rich enough to describe some
interesting semantics, something that XHTML 2.0 is not offering much
of at all.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Jim Ley]

Re: Once again: effects in Migration HTML 4.01 -&gt; XHTML 1.0

On 6 Apr 2004 15:04:58 GMT, "Philipp Lenssen" <info@outer-court.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> XHTML is intended to do
>just that. Switching to it today ensures that one day, HTML will work
>better than it does now.[/color]

Yep that was the theory, but as you note it doesn't serve me an
individual any better being the person that breaks vases.

In any case I can get all the benefits (if indeed there are any) in
moving to XHTML 2.0 by moving to XHTML 2.0 - I don't have to take
incremental steps in between, unlike learning to walk, where the
intermediate steps are essential.

In any case with future W3 specs such as XBL, and SVG 1.2, the
rendering and the semantic format of your mark-up can become much more
distinct, this with render XHTML 2.0 obsolete in the face of more
specific vocabularies that are actually rich enough to describe some
interesting semantics, something that XHTML 2.0 is not offering much
of at all.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/