Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
rjelliffe@a... wrote: > But does WF actually catch the kinds of errors people make? Or does it > create the idea and requirement that some things are errors, and allow > people think they have achieved something by conforming to it, that they > have worked hard, whereas in fact they are little further advanced than > they would have been otherwise? Does XHTML merely pander to neat-freaks? If you're scripting HTML, writing well-formed XHTML makes life vastly more predictable. The same is true to a lesser extent of CSS. It's not just human neat-freaks - it's the computer neat-freaks too. And if you want to see where giving up on that dream leads, I'd recommend reading the HTML 5 material on parsing: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-html5-20090423/syntax.html#syntax> Yes, that's a real document. > XHTML will always be necessary, because XSLTs that generate HTML need an > HTML formulated as XML. I don't think that the number of documents > delivered over the web using XHTML is a relevant metric. > > I would prefer if HTML was reformulated as a three layer technology: > > Wiki -> HTML -> XHTML > > reconstructing more of what SGML did but cleanly. Something like this > seems much more doable under the aegis of a single WG. I don't think that's why this is happening, though. -- Simon St.Laurent http://simonstl.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
