IBM pimps XHTML 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

More crazy from the Pollyanna's of the "Everything XML works fine and
what's this Intaweb thing anyway?" school


Re: IBM pimps XHTML 2

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:37:54 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Corrected link:

Re: IBM pimps XHTML 2

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Haven't read this yet, but in general, I find the Developerworks series to
be truly excellent on virtually all topics.

However, I can't see myself programming in XHTML2 anytime soon, especially
if all I'm doing is displaying my pages in a web browser.

Re: IBM pimps XHTML 2

Andy Dingley wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  Yes, the author is rather enthusiastic about the new draft. He
apparently does not have any direct experience with it, though. It is all
"This will be sooo cool, when it gets here." He also seems a little vague
on writing proper HTML as well. Some of his comments regarding the
structural aspects are a bit off.
  XHTML 2 seems a language for machines, a lot like XML is. Hand writing
XHTML 2 would be a real pain.
  The author repeatedly mentions how it is a more suitable output format
for documents stored in XML, or to replace XML as the primary storage
format. In other words XHTML 2 is for publishing programs that expect a
document to output to at least two formats, say print and web.
  The "XML events" aspect appears very promising. A seems a bit like SAX2.

jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Site Timeline