In a message dated 18/11/2002 22:09:12 GMT Standard Time, dareo@[...].com 
writes:


>  PS: Reading the linked Zeldman.com article I couldn't help but be
>  puzzled by "XHTML 1.0 brought consistent rules to traditional web markup
>  and helped it play well with XML applications. These standards made
>  sense because they solved real problems.". In hindsight, are there
>  people who truly believe XHTML 1.0 solved any real problems besides
>  making HTML buzzword compliant? Honest question not flamebait. 
>  

Dare,

This topic was the subject of a lively debate on XHTML-L a few weeks back.

I think some of that list were pretty horrified when the issue of the value 
of XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.0 was really pushed. The advantages of XHTML 1.0 are 
pitifully few ... to many average Web developers. Having a gold star from W3C 
which states "Your page is XHTML compliant" or whatever it does say isn't an 
impressive reason for moving to XHTML 1.0.

It might also help to understand Jeffrey Zeldman's comments to appreciate 
that he is a Web *designer* who is currently using Flash routinely. Not that 
there is anything much intrinsically wrong with using Flash ... apart from 
the fact it isn't SVG. <grin/>  So, I hope I am not being unfair here, his 
horizons for standards are primarily XHTML, DOM and CSS. The subset of 
standards that make it into his horizons is very much a Web designer's 
subset. So, for the range of work he does it is simply factual to state that 
more than a few W3C specifications are irrelevant to his daily work needs.

Now in time XForms will impinge on his horizons and I do wonder what his 
opinion will prove to be on those. :)

Andrew Watt