|
|
Posted by 1001 Webs on 11/05/07 20:13
On Nov 5, 8:52 pm, Bone Ur <monstersquas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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?
The <img> element is not strictly necessary, but is included to ease
the transition to XHTML2.
Like the object element, this element's content is only presented if
the referenced resource is unavailable.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-image.html#s_imagemodule
> -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]
|