• To: AndrewWatt2000@a...
• Subject: Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 03:10:20 -0800
• Cc: mc@x..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <35.309b8129.2b134cc3@a...>
• References: <35.309b8129.2b134cc3@a...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016

AndrewWatt2000@a... wrote:

>
> SVG is significantly ahead of where XUL and XForms are. At least for 
> the moment. After all XForms is only at CR.
>
> Sure, XUL and XForms may come along later....

 > ...

>
> What do you need XHTML for that SVG doesn't pretty much already do?

I don't know why you are in such a hurry to pit technologies that were 
designed to be complimentary against each other. It is _significantly_ 
easier to make web documents that resize properly across user agents in 
XHTML. Scaling is not always what you want. Sometimes you want 
constrain-based layout and XHTML has it and SVG does not. Sometimes you 
want forms widgets and XForms have them and SVG does not. Sometimes you 
want windows, menus, toolbars, etc. XUL has them. SVG does not. And 
sometimes you want vector graphics. SVG has them. The others do not.

  Paul Prescod

• References:
  • Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...

• Prev by Date: RE: RDF and the new releases
• Next by Date: RE: RDF and the new releases
• Previous by thread: Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
• Next by thread: Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread