XTech conference considered harmful?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Andy Dingley, Feb 13, 2006.

  1. Andy Dingley

    Andy Dingley Guest

    I was saddened to bump into both of these today. Although they take
    quite contradictory viewpoints (by the same person at the same
    conference!) they both struck me as deserving of the Golden Clueiron
    award (and this isn't a good thing)

    Why we need HTML 5 (Edd Dumbill)
    http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-futhtml1/

    Why we need XHTML 2.0 (Edd Dumbill)
    http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-futhtml2.html?ca=dgr-lnxw03XHTML2


    Now if anyone wants to talk about where XHTML 1.2 should go, then I'm
    all ears. Even XForms! Sensible development is a good thing. But XHTML
    2.0 is a smoking foot-stump of a bad idea and HTML 5 is just a few egos
    throwing their toys out of the pram.

    Anyone else care to comment?
    Andy Dingley, Feb 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Andy Dingley

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    Andy Dingley wrote:

    > Now if anyone wants to talk about where XHTML 1.2 should go, then I'm
    > all ears. Even XForms! Sensible development is a good thing. But XHTML
    > 2.0 is a smoking foot-stump of a bad idea and HTML 5 is just a few egos
    > throwing their toys out of the pram.


    I believe that XHTML 2.0 is a very good idea and is a much cleaner
    language than any other HTML language we now have. However, I doubt if
    anyone need get too excited about it, pro or con, for quite a while.
    Although some aspects of it could be used in present browsers, it
    likely will be several years before most aspects of it are included in
    most popular browsers. I need only mention that IE6 can not even
    support any kind of XHTML served properly as application/xhtml+xml, and
    apparently IE7 will not either, at least at first.

    There are now many small computing devices in addition to PCs, and the
    need to exchange data in a standard way between them can only grow.
    Most of these newer devices are going the XML route. Thus I think there
    is increasing pressure to standardize languages as much as possible.
    XHTML 2.0 may or may not be the best and final answer for PCs. However,
    many in the PC community are so set in their ways, including some of
    the browser developers, that I guess it could take 10 years to arrive
    at XHTML, or something else, with many kicking and screaming all of the
    way.
    cwdjrxyz, Feb 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>,
    Andy Dingley <> wrote:
    >I was saddened to bump into both of these today. Although they take
    >quite contradictory viewpoints (by the same person at the same
    >conference!) they both struck me as deserving of the Golden Clueiron
    >award (and this isn't a good thing)
    >
    >Why we need HTML 5 (Edd Dumbill)
    >http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-futhtml1/
    >
    >Why we need XHTML 2.0 (Edd Dumbill)
    >http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-futhtml2.html?ca=dgr-lnxw03XHTML2
    >
    >
    >Now if anyone wants to talk about where XHTML 1.2 should go, then I'm
    >all ears. Even XForms! Sensible development is a good thing. But XHTML
    >2.0 is a smoking foot-stump of a bad idea and HTML 5 is just a few egos
    >throwing their toys out of the pram.
    >
    >Anyone else care to comment?


    "Noalias must go. This is not negotiable" - dmr ;-)

    I just LOVE standards.




    --
    Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
    Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
    1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home page: http://rs79.vrx.net
    633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
    Richard Sexton, Feb 14, 2006
    #3
    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. Robert Mischke
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,516
    Tony Morris
    May 19, 2005
  2. Toby A Inkster
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    733
  3. Replies:
    25
    Views:
    1,294
    Isaac To
    Oct 31, 2003
  4. Replies:
    9
    Views:
    527
  5. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    307
    Jonathan P.
    Nov 10, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page