Hi Mark, I am new to the group and if this topic has been discussed ad nauseam - I do apologize for raising it again.
See my response to ActiveX here: http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1021 Regards, -Vlad XStandard Development Team http://xstandard.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Stanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 8:17 PM Subject: RE: [WSG] Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml > 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 > ***************************************************** > > ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
