|
|
Posted by Bone Ur on 11/05/07 19:52
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:08:18
GMT David Dorward scribed:
> On Nov 4, 5:19 pm, Bone Ur <monstersquas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Did you ever notice that most of what the w3c recommends is a
>> restriction rather than an enhancement? Such policies are supposed
>> to make things work better, which they may do about half the time -
>> maybe. From what I recall, one cannot use the javascript method
>> "document.write" in xhtml
>
> That is just due to the way browsers have implemented it, not a
> requirement of the specification.
>
>> and you have to put something like [[CDATA && ]] (?) near the element
>> terminators.
>
> XML is simpler than SGML and doesn't have a means of saying "Ignore <
> and & characters inside <foo> elments". This means XML can be parsed
> without needing access to a DTD, and that XML parsers can be smaller
> and faster than SGML parsers.
>
>> Another of my favorites is the requirement of slash terminators for
>> unclosed elements.
>
> Ditto. You don't need a DTD to find out if the element is finished or
> not.
>
> (For all the above, read "DTD" as "DTD or another means of knowing the
> specific XML dialect")
Well, I didn't know some of that, particularly that XML can be parsed
without accessing a dtd. But xhtml "needs" a dtd, or is it just because
of the compatibility issues with appendix c et al? And if in the context
of what you said there's a meaningful difference between XML and xhtml,
the logical question is can SGML (not html) be parsed without a dtd also?
Anyway, I'm still not impressed. What's wrong with making <img
src="my.png">Look at me.</img> the "right way to do it" and getting rid
of the stupid "alt" attribute? -Or rework it another way; I'm not
proposing normative standards here, only a philosophy of solution. The
parser is just one aspect of hypertext rendering and I truly believe the
whole schlemeil needs to be re-evaluated on the basis of current
empirical experience and revised in a manner which seems to at least
partially elude the w3c's "citadel of knowledge". When automobiles were
first constructed and wise men gleaned a time that horses would be
replaced, they didn't make the vehicles consume hay and expel road apples
every couple of miles, did they? That's kind of the picture I get when I
contemplate markup "progress". More than one thing needs to be changed,
that's for sure, and if compatibility is the issue which is inhibiting
innovation, the solution is obviously to go another way. Well, it's
obvious to me.
--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|