• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XHTML survival rate?
• From: Doug Royer <Doug@r...>
• Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:49:25 -0600
• Organization: INET-Consulting <http://INET-Consulting.com>
• References: <E6CDEF4DFA31524D83641C6B9550AF77013FEE9E@e...> <1018468565.982.26.camel@l...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2

Simon St.Laurent wrote:

> ...
> Until and unless XHTML does more interesting things than HTML 4, I don't
> think it's going to go anywhere.  Web developers can't seem to get past
> the "why" question, and the W3C's seemingly obsessive fascination with
> validation and constraints is less than compelling to designers who have
> to explain to their clients why XHTML is worth the extra work.


So far the only usage that I have seen is XHTML views inside
of XML objects. That is where the data and the view are in the same XML
object. It's can't be displayed directly by most browsers, but a thin
layer allows applications to spawn off a browser and retain and process
the data from the view.


-- 
-
Doug Royer
Doug@R...
http://INET-Consulting.com

• References:
  • XHTML survival rate?
    • From: "Jens Jakob Andersen, PDI" <jens.jakob.andersen@p...>
  • Re: XHTML survival rate?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• Next by Date: Re: XHTML survival rate?
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML survival rate?
• Next by thread: Re: XHTML survival rate?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread