Hey guys (once again)
I was thinking about your stereotypical Angelfire / Tripod user, the "beginner hobbyist".
Typically, these people start off with HTML3.2 or HTML4.01 Transitional, as these are the most flexible, however they also lead to bad practices later on.
Have a look at the latest spec
...Then ask yourself why so many people don't want to use this spec
I asked on such individual: "XHTML is too restrictive, how am I supposed to layout pages if I can't use tables?"
I think the W3C needs to produce more flavors of XHTML than just the single specification... I'm thinking more along the lines of:
"XHTML 2.0 - Simple" "XHTML 2.0 - Contracted Tags + Attributes" "XHTML 2.0 - Complete"
Where the "Simple" edition is a vastly simplified version where there's less emphasis on content/presentation separation, such as greater support for attribute styles and perhaps a <LayoutTable> element? Where each <LayoutCell> has a "Context Order" informing screen-readers in what order to read the content?
I was also thinking of bandwidth conservation, especilly with the mobile device market, and thought up a variant of XHTML where only the essential elements are included, and represented using the minimum of letters, ditto for their attributes
Say we want a table with a width of 100px and 2 rows and 3 columns:
<t s="w:100p;">
<tr>
<tc></>
<tc></>
<tc></>
</>
<tr>
<tc></>
<tc></>
<tc></>
</>
</>Note my use of my proposed "universal closing tag" '</>'
Just out of curiosity... how do I get things like these formalised into an RFC Document and sent to the W3C for review?
-- -David R ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
