You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org> on 2003/01/27 23:28:45 UTC
about xhtml2
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/01/26/in_brief_superbowl_sunday.html
ouch... :-(
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: about xhtml2
Posted by Miles Elam <mi...@geekspeak.org>.
This is nothing new. The same has been said at length about CSS and the
removal of the <font> tag in the Strict models of (X)HTML.
Personally, I think it's an overreaction. No one is proposing forcing
others to use XHTML2 when it is released/recommended. In fact, there
are many comments on the XHTML2 mailing list that say that there is no
problem using HTML 4.01 instead if their needs warrant it. It isn't
like a software bug fix that's only available in the newer version or
that browser support for HTML 3.2 is suddenly going to vanish. Previous
recommendations are still recommendations.
XHTML2 simply fills a void on the web for semantic markup. I'd be very
surprised if editor authors didn't find it orders of magnitude easier to
write for than previous incarnations of HTML.
That and I don't see why <img /> to <object /> and <br /> to <l /> are
causing such a fuss. You have to actually put the XHTML 2.0 doctype in
your page to reference the new markup. Don't want to code XHTML 2.0?
Keep using the HTML 4.01 doctype (or even the HTML 3.2 doctype) and the
pages work in perpetuity.
Personally, I think that semantics styled by CSS is the way to go and
XHTML2 is simply codifying this belief, but all of the HTML 3.2 authors
don't have change their authoring habits if they absolutely don't want
to. If only they saw how they could update a site's appearance en masse
instead of one font tag at a time...
Browsers aren't going to dump earlier specs (99.999% of the web pages
out there) anytime soon. Way too many people have their panties up in a
bunch over this non-issue. The two (four?) can coexist happily.
- Miles
Steven Noels wrote:
> http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/01/26/in_brief_superbowl_sunday.html
>
> ouch... :-(
>
> </Steven>