[thelist] Re: a horse! my kingdom for an XHTML horse! was RE: [thelist] Tablesvs Layers

[Warden, Matt]

> >>But is it ever really going to replace HTML as the
> >>de-facto for web-markup? I doubt it..
> >
> >Why do you doubt it?  There will be no further versions of HTML.  So
> >therefore HTML is dead & IF (yes, big if) the browsers support XML, HTML
> >will just fall into disuse & die.
>
> In how many years' time?

I think it will be SO far off that estimation is useless. Where's WML? As I
understand it, there is no released "version" of WML from w3c.org. Yet,
there are plenty of sites that use WML for at least a portion. Hell, I hear
it's really big over in the UK. So, if WML hasn't been released yet, how is
this possible. I believe that phone.com and wapforum.org own the current
"spec". You don't think something similar would happen with HTML? Shit, IE
and NN have been developing their own versions of HTML since the beginning
of (Internet) time. I'll tell you one thing, HTML is a helluva lot easier
for a new-comer to pick up than XML plus presentation languages like XSL.
You think Joe Teenager over at angelfire.com is going to be writing his/her
web pages in XML and XSL. *Maybe* with the aid of a WYSIWYG editor, but if
some software is spitting out tags like <tag1322></tag1322>, what's the
point?

Browsers, parsing engines, books, WYSIWYG editors, videos, classes, existing
websites, etc., etc., etc. There is so much already invested in an HTML
world that it ain't goin' nowhere anytime soon. The day Microsoft makes IE a
XML-only browser is the day that I'll stand on my head and say that HTML is
dead (i just wanted that to rhyme). And even when that happens, I highly
doubt that it would be a very strict XML parser.

<MSIE:signature displayInNonOutlookMailClients="false">

--
mattwarden
mattwarden.com

</MSIE:signature>