• To: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: limits of the generic
• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 10:42:10 -0400
• In-reply-to: <012001c266c3$ef148330$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• References: <200209272150.RAA00756@m...>

At 05:52 PM 9/28/2002 +1000, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>From: "John Cowan" <jcowan@r...>
>
> > Does anybody *really* believe that Joe Website will be writing perfect
> > XHTML 2.0 without tools?
>
>Does anyone *really* believe that Joe Website will be writing well-formed
>XML for casual content when forgiving old HTML is available?

Joe Website, doing their own personal home page, or managing something as a 
side-task to their "real job" as marketing wonk, probably won't.

However, let's not treat "Joe Website" as the trailer-trash of the markup 
world. There are many, many of us, including I'd suspect the majority on 
this list, that do make efforts to produce well-formed and valid (X)HTML 
now. That group is still part of "Joe Website" -- there's no clear division 
between 'too stupid to do anything else but use a tool' and the giant 
intellect of the xml-deviant.

Ann

• References:
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: limits of the generic
• Next by Date: RE: namespaces in XML 1.1 - namespace names become *IRI* references
• Previous by thread: Re: limits of the generic
• Next by thread: Re: limits of the generic
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread