Where are we heading?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Cameron, Dec 29, 2003.

  1. Cameron

    Cameron Guest

    I have been using HTML for many years and XHTML, trouble is I haven't
    really kept up to date and I want to start putting that right now, I was
    wondering, after looking at the W3C's page regarding HTML and XHTML, are
    we looking at a completely XML based future for markup languages?

    Thanks for your thoughts/comments

    ~Cameron
     
    Cameron, Dec 29, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Cameron

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:bsq9oh$vq6$>
    Cameron said:

    > are we looking at a completely XML based future for markup languages?


    the future really gets pissed off when its predicted and will most
    probably do the exact opposite just to annoy everyone.

    --
    brucie
    30/December/2003 10:56:31 am kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 30, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Cameron

    Bob Guest

    On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:27:29 +0000, Cameron <>
    wrote:

    >are
    >we looking at a completely XML based future for markup languages?


    Ideally XML would have been the language/environment of choice for
    the web... but HTML had to happen first and the 'net had to grow
    before anyone realized how terribly wrong it was. XML/XSL and the
    other relations have many advantages over HTML/CSS. The primary
    advantage is that XML properly separates data from structure and
    style whereas HTML has always integrated it a bit. Pure X-HTML with
    CSS moves in the right direction. However, due to browser evolution,
    it will be some time before client side XML is a reality. Microsoft
    has sort of fired the first shot in the "common man's" area by making
    FP 2003 work with XML/XSL. XML/XSL is too complicated for every Joe
    on the street to code from scratch but with WYSIWYG programs, Joe
    should be able to mangle it just as well as he mangled HTML. But,
    there are lots of practical holes to be filled before its "the way
    to go".

    On the server, XML can and does work now. XSL goes far beyond CSS
    and is a powerful language. Also, XML is being adopted as an format
    for data exchange well beyond "web pages". You'll see XML as a
    practical alternative there (now) before you see it as a common
    client (browser) language.
     
    Bob, Dec 30, 2003
    #3
  4. Cameron

    Bob Guest

    On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:57:46 +1000, brucie
    <> wrote:

    >the future really gets pissed off when its predicted and will most
    >probably do the exact opposite just to annoy everyone.


    I've often thought that all I have to do to bring Microsoft to its
    knees would be for me personally to predict its success. That, and,
    buy some MS stock. That would be sure to send it into the dumper.
     
    Bob, Dec 30, 2003
    #4
  5. Bob wrote:
    > Ideally XML would have been the language/environment of choice for
    > the web... but HTML had to happen first and the 'net had to grow
    > before anyone realized how terribly wrong it was.


    Nonsense. SGML was there before HTML.

    > XML/XSL and the other relations have many advantages over HTML/CSS.


    XSL is designed to do something entirely different from CSS. XSL doesn't
    specify any presentation, you still need a CSS (or some other) style sheet.

    > The primaryadvantage is that XML properly separates data from structure
    > and style whereas HTML has always integrated it a bit.


    No it doesn't. I can define an XML DTD which has <font> and other
    presentational nonsense, and that would be perfectly valid XML.
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Dec 30, 2003
    #5
  6. Re: Where are we heading? (Now OT)

    In article <bsqihq$dchm$-berlin.de>,
    brucie <> wrote:

    > the future really gets pissed off when its predicted and will most
    > probably do the exact opposite just to annoy everyone.


    I'd love to swipe that for a sig...

    Audry

    --
    I am not a professional woman.
    tawdry glamour who is at smile global dot com
     
    T. Audry Glamour, Dec 30, 2003
    #6
  7. Cameron

    brucie Guest

    Re: Where are we heading? (Now OT)

    in post <news:-berlin.de>
    T. Audry Glamour said:

    >> the future really gets pissed off when its predicted and will most
    >> probably do the exact opposite just to annoy everyone.


    > I'd love to swipe that for a sig...


    how can i turn down someone with such sexy lips. be my guest.

    --
    brucie
    30/December/2003 01:35:07 pm kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 30, 2003
    #7
  8. Re: Where are we heading? (Now OT)

    In article <bsqrtn$g3t5$-berlin.de>,
    brucie <> replied to me when I wrote:

    > > I'd love to swipe that for a sig...

    >
    > ... be my guest.


    Thanks. Hope it looks okay. Errrm, rather like a quote from the
    bible...

    Audry

    --
    "the future really gets pissed off when its predicted
    and will most probably do the exact opposite
    just to annoy everyone." (brucie, alt.html)
    tawdry glamour who is at smile global dot com
     
    T. Audry Glamour, Dec 30, 2003
    #8
  9. Cameron

    Steve R. Guest

    Cameron wrote in message ...
    > after looking at the W3C's page regarding HTML and XHTML, are
    > we looking at a completely XML based future for markup languages?


    HTML is like the good old four-stroke engine developed all those years ago,
    primitive, easy to work on, and still working universally well after all
    these years.

    CSS, XTHML and all the others are like the 'Wankel' rotary engine and
    various other hybrids, supposedly better and more efficient, but very
    difficult to get running right and more prone to problems and reliability.

    Long live simple HTML :~)
     
    Steve R., Dec 30, 2003
    #9
  10. Cameron

    Richard Guest

    Cameron wrote:

    > I have been using HTML for many years and XHTML, trouble is I haven't
    > really kept up to date and I want to start putting that right now, I was
    > wondering, after looking at the W3C's page regarding HTML and XHTML, are
    > we looking at a completely XML based future for markup languages?


    > Thanks for your thoughts/comments


    > ~Cameron


    FWIW, markup language is like a child growing up and learning.
    At first we had DOS, Basic, then along came qbasic,which evolved into visual
    basic.
    At first we had a simple buggy with a motor attached to the wheels.
    Then we look back and say, why didn't we just start there to begin with?
    Like M$ windows evolving from a set of simple block, no frills, windows to
    the advanced stage it is in now.

    As with anything, we must begin somewhere simple, then progess from there.
    As with a child growing and learning.
     
    Richard, Dec 30, 2003
    #10
  11. Cameron

    Bob Guest

    On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:52:51 GMT, Leif K-Brooks
    <> wrote:

    >Bob wrote:
    >> Ideally XML would have been the language/environment of choice for
    >> the web... but HTML had to happen first and the 'net had to grow
    >> before anyone realized how terribly wrong it was.

    >
    >Nonsense. SGML was there before HTML.


    Yes, SGML was there but SGML was not chosen as the language to be
    used for initial deployment. Instead we used it's CERN inspired
    derivative, HTML. There was no XML spec when HTML was created or even
    once HTML was well known. The necessary related items like XSL, CSS,
    etc were long in arriving... and in some cases, still are not there.
    As a note, SGML was considered for use instead of creating another
    derivative (XML) but it was felt to be too complex for the job that
    needed to be done.

    >> XML/XSL and the other relations have many advantages over HTML/CSS.

    >
    >XSL is designed to do something entirely different from CSS. XSL doesn't
    >specify any presentation, you still need a CSS (or some other) style sheet.


    Loosely speaking, XSL consists of two components: XSLt which is the
    procedural/programming component and XSL:FO which is the formatting
    component. A world with XML, XSLt, and XSL:FO would be terrific for
    developers and development.

    >> The primaryadvantage is that XML properly separates data from structure
    >> and style whereas HTML has always integrated it a bit.

    >
    >No it doesn't. I can define an XML DTD which has <font> and other
    >presentational nonsense, and that would be perfectly valid XML.


    You missed the concept. XML is about data. You can have any data
    spec'ed that you want. XML never, ever, says anything about
    presentation. All you have in XML is labeled data. Now, if you want
    to create an XML compliant language (such as XHTML) that contains
    elements that are _used_ by an application as formatting commands,
    you may. The XML file still just contains data.

    You can create a DTD that allows for <font> tags. However, that does
    not mean that XML says anything about formatting. What it means is
    that you (or someone else) wrote an application that expects or
    understands a <font> tag. In XML terms, it's all just data.
     
    Bob, Dec 31, 2003
    #11
  12. I dunno exactly where we're going, but this handbasket has horrid
    legroom.

    --
    | Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
    |"I am astounded ... at the wonderful power you have developed -- and |
    |terrified at the thought that so much hideous and bad music may be put on |
    |record forever." -- Arthur Sullivan, 1888, upon viewing Edison's phonograph|
     
    Andrew Glasgow, Dec 31, 2003
    #12
  13. Bob <> wrote:

    > There was no XML spec when HTML was created or
    > even once HTML was well known.


    Apparently not, but that's rather irrelevant, since XML is just a
    very restricted and somewhat messed-up profile of SGML.

    > XML never, ever, says anything about presentation.


    Or about any meaning.

    > All you have in XML is labeled data.


    Indeed. In particular, it has no structure apart from the trivial
    nesting of meaningless tags used for the labelling.

    > You can create a DTD that allows for <font> tags. However, that
    > does not mean that XML says anything about formatting.


    Similarly, you can create a DTD that allows for <price> tags. Hoever,
    that does not mean that XML says anything about prices, or goods, or
    anything real or imaginary in the universe.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jan 7, 2004
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?SmltIEhlYXZleQ==?=

    DataGrid Heading

    =?Utf-8?B?SmltIEhlYXZleQ==?=, Dec 10, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,493
    Curt_C [MVP]
    Dec 10, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?ZGVubmlzdDY4NQ==?=

    Format text as a heading

    =?Utf-8?B?ZGVubmlzdDY4NQ==?=, Nov 22, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    555
    Mark Wills
    Sep 14, 2006
  3. jack-e

    List Box Heading

    jack-e, Feb 12, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    508
    =?Utf-8?B?RFdT?=
    Feb 12, 2006
  4. dm1608
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,642
    Eliyahu Goldin
    Feb 19, 2006
  5. Adrian Parker

    DataGrid Column Heading HTML Encoding ?

    Adrian Parker, Feb 27, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,896
    Steven Cheng[MSFT]
    Mar 1, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page