XTech conference considered harmful?

[Andy Dingley]

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?

 

[cwdjrxyz]

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.

 

[Richard Sexton]

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.