On Dec 1, 9:37 am, Ken Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> kangax wrote:
> > I'm afraid bringing in xhtml would get us into more trouble
> >http://www.autisticcuckoo.net/archive.php?id=2005/03/14/xhtml-is-dead
> > : )
>
> > The issue is obviously debatable.
>
> Very interesting indeed. What do list members think about XHTML versus
> HTML? It is interesting especially since the prototype and scriptaculous
> authors consistently use XHTML. IMO the root of the debate is what to
> do about IE being so far behind the curve.
The debate should be about whether XHTML delivers any benefits over
HTML, and the proper place to have it is at:
news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
<URL:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html?hl=en&lnk=li
>
I has been discussed there many times by people who know what they are
talking about:
<URL:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html/browse_frm/thread/934948a25a434eea/d230081f00342c0f?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=HTML+vs+XHTML#d230081f00342c0f
>
<URL:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html/search?group=comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html&q=xhtml+vs+html
>
> 2) He assumes that web authors cannot push browser technology.
You assume that XHTML is *required* to "push browser technology".
> Here are
> a few examples of how authors can push technology:
> - If every page stopped working (e.g. showed an xml tree) in IE one day,
> Microsoft would have no choice but to release patches.
That isn't "pushing technology", that's simply wishing that everyone
will write pages that deliberately don't work in IE. You may as well
just detect the browser and show an empty page.
> - If every author made a feature rich page for non-IE browsers and a
> boring text-page for IE browsers, Microsoft would be highly pressured to
> come up to speed with Gecko, Opera, and WebKit.
That is just your first point re-factored slightly.
> - From Microsoft's perspective, it is important that their product work
> well in normal operating conditions. If 90% of web pages are XHTML by
> IE8's release, maybe Microsoft would consider better support for both
> "fake" and "true" XTHML.
It is not helpful to introduce impossible, idealistic scenarios. And
how is that "pushing technology"?
> In such a case, web authors could quickly
> convert their fake XHTML into true HTML with a few adjustments (e.g. add
> an XML header).
Spot the typo. :-) Most authors seem to believe that they can write
their pages as XHTML and simply serve it as HTML. The position has
been discussed at length in the above links, but simply results in
them serving invalid HTML, which really defeats the purpose of
attempting to use XML in the first place.
> 3) He ignores the importance of new browser technology such as
> mobile-device browsers. If all web pages were XHTML, CPU-savvy mobile
> devices would save a lot of cycles by assuming the document was well-formed.
I think you are way off the track there. I have no idea how many
mobile devices support XHTML, but I expect it is a very small number.
You also assume that there is an issue with parsing HTML that is fixed
by assuming XHTML. I don't think anyone has identified the first
issue as a problem, so the second is moot.
Also, you seem to be assuming that XHTML will usher in a new age of
interactive web pages, which infers that a zillion more CPU cycles
will be wasted delivering visual effects that, for many, are just
plain annoying. So is CPU power a real issue, or just a red herring?
You still haven't provided a reason why XHTML is better
> 4) He seems to be advocating making web pages that will last forever.
> In the evolving and fast-moving web world, there are a lot of exciting
> things coming along: SVG images, columnar layout, full PNG support,
> multiple background images, and super useful JavaScript such as
> getElementsByClassName and getElementsBySelector.
None of which require XHTML, nor does supporting them mean ditching
HTML.
> I feel like the best
> way to pressure Microsoft is to start giving non-IE users a better
> experience by using these newly emerging technologies. Sure, SVG might
> fizzle out, but such risks are often worth taking.
So your real motive is to pressure Microsoft into supporting XML in
IE. You have yet to put forward any practical benefits of XHTML over
HTML.
> Basically, I think that Ian's perspective is to sit and wait for
> Microsoft while I would rather fight and push!
Knock yourself out, but you should be doing it in a group or forum
that has some impact on Microsoft's plans for IE.
--
Rob
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
