Re: TAG case; XHTML; Flame Wars.

>XHTML provides a mechanism for backward compatibility which HTML
>doesn't.  There is the advantage you wanted stated.

Backward compatibility with what? With HTML? That's true, of course, but 
it's not something we *need* XHTML for.

>New browsers WILL NOT have the specification hard-wired into them.

And this is where I don't agree. As I said before, commercially speaking 
they will have to continue to support HTML as we now know it.

>If you want an example of language independence, try 
> >http://203.5.69.47/xmlpage.xml using IE5 or NN6.  The limiting factor of 
>these new devices will become their support for the CSS specifications.

Maybe we're quibbling over definitions here, but to me this page is written 
in the language XML which is supported by IE5 and NN6. I don't think that 
client side XML like on this page will become very important in the current 
generation of browsers.

I understand that XML is meant to be far more than just a language, but at 
the moment it's not more than that *in practice*.

(WAP):
>Large companies are not going to want to write and maintain 2 or 3 or more 
>versions of the same site for each appliance.

Nope. They'll put the info in (server side) XML and generate HTML or WML or 
whatever they need.

ppk
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA