Oh dear... I didn't want to get into this argument again. > Did you know that your statement "XHTML is currently a waste > of time. It might be useful in a few years" promotes the use > of IE? It certainly doesn't promote the use of > standards-compliant XHTML browsers like > Mozilla/Firefox/Opera. For the first time, these browsers > have a technological advantage over IE and you are missing > it. Do you happen to work in Redmond by any chance?
Rubbish. I use Firefox as my primary browser & actively encourage the use of it and other "standards compliant" browsers where ever I can. My mention of IE was a specific answer to a specific question about IE. My comment "XHTML is currently a waste of time. It might be useful in a few years" has almost nothing to do with IE. Please read http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml. > Anyway, too many people focus on browsers and their ability > to consume XHTML. Today, the real benefit of XHTML is on the > content production side. Sorry - I thought that thread was about which mime types to use in serving XHTML to browsers? Content production is not relevant on this list. Please use the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list if you which to discuss content production and the like. > Without XHTML, the average Web developer could not parse > content for re-purposing because HTML makes parsing > difficult. Here is an example of how some of our customers > build Web sites (it would be impossible for them to do this > if the content was in HTML): they have a single script (PHP, > ASP, etc) that provides the layout of the page and sucks-up > content from a data store. > > Depending on the type of document (FAQs, press release, staff > list, etc), they run an XSLT to re-format the content. For > example, for FAQs, the XSLT goes through each header, anchors > it and creates a list of hyperlinks at the top of the page to > jump to each FAQ. You can only do this if you author your > content in XHTML. We're off topic here, but HTML 4.1 is only ever one step away from XHTML (HTML Tidy & jTidy) so your argument about things being impossible if you're using HTML is incorrect. People have been taking this approach (markup -> transform -> publish) to content management for years (see DocBook, SGML, etc...), it nothing new. Some alternative approaches: http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/199905/threads.html#00229 http://www.google.com/search?&q=wordML+XSL http://www.google.com/search?&q=docbook+XSL XSLT is very useful, but it relies on XML not XHTML. So maybe "You can only transform content with XSLT if you author your content in XML." might be more accurate? I do understand your point and in the situation that you have mentioned XHTML is useful. But this is only one specific scenario and its not relevant to the original post. > Mark, you made a bold statement, so I will counter with a > statement just as bold - Authoring content in HTML > immediately devalues that content, because as soon as you > capture content in HTML it become legacy data, difficult to > parse and difficult to re-purpose. Ok, maybe I should have said HTML 4.1 is the right choice for *delivering web documents to web browsers* at the moment. I don't care what format or systems people use to author and manage their content - I am simply talking about what should be reaching browsers. > Regards, > -Vlad > XStandard Development Team > The first standards-based XHTML 1.1 WYSIWYG editor I like your product very much (I downloaded a copy the other day), but I find it a little ironic that you point the finger at me saying I work for Redmond when your product based entirely on Microsoft's ActiveX technology. I don't want to argue about any of this, its been done 100 times before & I certainly don't want to get personal. The only reason I am writing this email is that I expressed an opinion and I don't particularly enjoy having it misrepresented. I am not anti XHTML in any way - I've followed its development closely for a couple of years & am very excited about the possibilities that has opened up. I don't feel the web is ready for it yet. Cheers Mark ------------------ Mark Stanton Technical Director Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: 9956 6388 Mob: 0410 458 201 Fax: 9956 8433 http://www.gruden.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 *****************************************************
