On 6/7/05, XStandard Vlad Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <...>
> [Ian] 4. Author decides to send the same content as application/xhtml+xml, > because it is, after all, XHTML. > [Vlad] Author wants to learn more about XHTML. What? <...> > I think arguments like this don't help Web standards. And articles with > sensational headlines like "XHTML is dead" is irresponsible and fear > mongering. > This is a critical time for Web standards because Web standards are on the > verge of becoming mainstream. Software vendors are thinking about making > their products/tools standards-compliant, thanks in part to the efforts of > WSG members. Don't let your efforts be undermined. Let's keep our eyes on the > prize. Yes. Only critical thing for the Web standards is _understanding_ them (and HTML4 _is_ a standard, you know?), not just using something that is cool and much talked about. And understanding includes knowing pros and cons and when and _why_ to use each. What many miss is the fact, that Ian's article and fears is based on the way things work in the real life: oh, let's try something cool, oh it breaks, to the hell with it, who cares. And XHTML makes it much easier to shoot oneself in the foot. So advocate semantics, advocate clean coding, advocate separation of content and presentation, advocate standards - not just a bunch of letters with that sexy X in front. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.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 ******************************************************
