Rimantas wrote: [quote] Only critical thing for the Web standards is understanding them [/quote]
That is a short-term view. If you want Web standards to become mainstream, they need to be transparent. Web standards need to be built-in to tools so that Web designers and Web developers don't need to know anything about Web standards and they produce standards-compliant Web sites. This is the prize we should be working towards. Rimantas wrote: [quote] Ian's article and fears is based on the way things work in the real life: oh, let's try something cool, oh it breaks, to the hell with it, who cares. [/quote] Web standards should not be an exclusive club for those that do everything right from the get go. We need to welcome everybody to the "club" who makes an effort. And if they don't get it right the first time or the second time, that is okay! Rimantas wrote: [quote] And XHTML makes it much easier to shoot oneself in the foot. [/quote] "Shoot oneself in the foot" - you make it sound so life and death, so dramatic, so finite. It's just markup not a day in the emergency room. This is exactly the kind of sensational statements that hurt Web standards. Rimantas wrote: [quote] HTML4 is a standard, you know [/quote] Yes, a bad standard. The moment you "author" (not serve-up) anything in HTML 4, it becomes legacy data. Why? Because you cannot easily parse it. If you have a Web site with 10,000 perfectly written HTML 4 documents, how are you going to make changes to those documents en-mass? With XHTML or another XML vocabulary, this task is trivial. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editor Rimantas Liubertas wrote: > On 6/7/05, XStandard Vlad Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <...> > >>[Ian] 4. Author decides to send the same content as application/xhtml+xml, >>because it is, after all, XHTML. >>[Vlad] Author wants to learn more about XHTML. > > > What? > > <...> > >>I think arguments like this don't help Web standards. And articles with >>sensational headlines like "XHTML is dead" is irresponsible and fear >>mongering. >>This is a critical time for Web standards because Web standards are on the >>verge of becoming mainstream. Software vendors are thinking about making >>their products/tools standards-compliant, thanks in part to the efforts of >>WSG members. Don't let your efforts be undermined. Let's keep our eyes on the >>prize. > > > Yes. Only critical thing for the Web standards is _understanding_ them > (and HTML4 _is_ a standard, you know?), not just using something that > is cool and much talked about. > And understanding includes knowing pros and cons and when and _why_ to use > each. > > What many miss is the fact, that Ian's article and fears is based on > the way things work in the real life: oh, let's try something cool, oh > it breaks, to the hell with it, who cares. > > And XHTML makes it much easier to shoot oneself in the foot. > > So advocate semantics, advocate clean coding, advocate separation of > content and presentation, advocate standards - not just a bunch of > letters with that sexy X in front. > > Regards, > Rimantas > -- > http://rimantas.com/ > ****************************************************** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ****************************************************** > > ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
