Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
AndrewWatt2000@a... wrote: > > Len, > > Yep, that's the one. > > If you persist in trying to connect with Blogstream you *eventually* > get a > page. If you think that's bad, imagine being on the INSIDE of that connection. I'll move that essay to my external wsp soon...my wife says "what's the use in being married to a computer expert if he can't make your Internet connection reliable?" I have no good answer. Er, that's not true. My answer was: "try unplugging the network cable from the machine that's serving the blog. That might be the one causing problem." > One of the things that struck me about the blog ... maybe coloured by the > question I am asking ... is how little mention XHTML gets from Paul. > > I wonder, if he is still interested in the topic, if he would comment > about > whether he sees XHTML as a key ingredient in this mix or if, possibly, he > mentions XHTML as much out of habit as anything. > If Paul sees XHTML as a key ingredient in the mix that might address > aspects > of the question I want to explore. XHTML could evolve into something exciting and new, but right now, to me it looks like a nip and tuck. I'd love to see XHTML 2.0 or 3.0 be essentially XHTML+XUL. But I would also be okay if SVG 2.0 is SVG+XUL. As long as we get an interface development language into the standard browser stack, I will be happy. If XHTML's developers want to spend their effort on a nip and tuck, who am I to complain? Incremental changes can have benefits over the long term. Paul Prescod
|
