Richard Czeiger wrote:
You make some good points Lachlan, but to be honest,
http://www.alleged.org.uk/pdc/2003/xhtml2-cite.html
rang very true for me....
That particular article is 3 years old and was referring to an old draft
of XHTML 2.0. The cite element has since returned.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-text.html#sec_9.2.
Even with HTML 4's var, code, samp and kbd, we still have to use a
combination of <code><pre> for formatting as well as annoyingly having
to translate < and > into < and > And worse, some people do some
odd things just to get some code examples across:
http://yesterdayishere.com/wordpress/arhiva/2005/04/25/writing-blocks-of-code/
Meanwhile, <cite> - which is INCREDIBLY useful - is being removed?
No, it's not being removed, it's still in HTML 5.
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-cite
Why not leave it in there and change the nature of <code> so that
anything typed in there acts as though it were in a text box - ie: so it
isn't executed - so we don't have to fiddle around with it all the time....
That wouldn't be backwards compatible. Browsers can't change their
behaviour like that because that would break many existing sites.
Besides, in XHTML, that problem is solved using <![CDATA[ ... ]]>.
Technially, it's been around since SGML, so it's valid in HTML, but most
browsers (except for Opera) don't support it in text/html and, thus,
it's not being retained in HTML 5.
Also, it's great to say : get involved and supply an email address.
however, my biggest problem with the W3C in general is the fact that the
people working with the technology (designers and developers) are the
ones with generally the least say - I don't know many of us that can
afford the $6500 annual membership fee.... :o(
In the WHATWG, aside from the editor, everyone who participates is
considered a contributor and everyone has equal say. Not even the small
group of actual WHATWG members have more say than a you or I, they're
just there as a sort of oversight committee.
Even in the W3C, you don't need to be a W3C Member to participate. They
offer the public mailing for that purpose. The Working Groups are
required by the process to formally address each and every issue raised
by the public and all suggestions are listened to and discussed. This
particularly true of the CSS, Web API and Web Application Formats
working groups.
Although there are a few notable exceptions that have failed in this
area, like the WCAG and current HTML WGs, it's being fixed (at least in
the case of HTML). So, it's not as if you can't contribute. If you
want to, please do.
It's great that the browser manufacturers and vendors are part of the
W3C and really taking note. But they shouldn't be the ones driving the
thing...
I disagree. The browser vendors are the ones who need to implement the
specs. Their input is vital for a spec to be useful to anyway, cause if
they can't implement it, we can't even use it.
The browser vendors also have the user's best interest in mind. They
don't want to spend their time implementing new features that won't
actually be useful to users, nor used by authors.
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
