Where are we heading?

[Cameron]

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

 

[brucie]

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.

 

[Bob]

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]

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.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

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.

 

[T. Audry Glamour]

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

 

[brucie]

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

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

 

[T. Audry Glamour]

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

... be my guest.[/QUOTE]

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

Audry

 

[Steve R.]

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 :~)

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[Bob]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Andrew Glasgow]

I dunno exactly where we're going, but this handbasket has horrid
legroom.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

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.