Re: XHTML 2.0

I'm going to agree with Michael. I liked his response enough that I've left
it pretty much intact below.

My shop has not done a static web site in almost 2 years. We do mostly
dynamic, database-driven stuff that can be managed and maintaned by regular
office staffers.  This definately requires weeding the presentation out of
the structure and I've found that it can be a clumsy process, especially
when dealing with browsers that don't understand CSS.

I don't expect that an XML-driven Web is in tomorrow's headlines, but I
certainly support the movement in that directly.  Sure, it means unlearning
all the browser tricks, workarounds and hacks we've sweated out over the
past few years, but it will replace those with a whole new world of
CSS-based presentation careers and it certainly will make life easier for
shops like mine.

D


----- Original Message -----
From: Michael McKee


On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 09:22  AM, Mike Taylor wrote:

> ---------  Original message --------
> From: Peter-Paul Koch <gassinaumasis(at)hotmail.com>
>  I find the move away from HTML
> disconcerting
> but I'm feeling the pressure to move to XHTML thanks to all the
> XML/XHTML
> hype.  My opinion of XML and XHTML is closer to what you'll find on
> XMLSUCKS.ORG.
>
>>> Which is exactly its failing. We cannot use it for coding web sites,
>>> so
> why
>>> should we use it at all?
>
I just spent the last couple of weeks buried in Framemaker. My boss
thought that since I can use Pagemaker I should replace the guy who
produced our manuals. FYI they're very different animals. Anyway, what
I came out with was an XML file that produced output that the print
department was happy with and the same material up on our intranet with
little extra trouble. This was my first real exposure to  XML and I'm
seriously impressed.

Now how does that relate to the discussion? I've read the XHTML 2
proposal and can see how it would be very easy to use the content
produced from it to multipurpose web pages. The current versions of IE
and Netscape will style XML with CSS (kinda-sorta) and by the time that
this becomes an actual standard enough people will be using capable
browsers and it should fly.

XHTML 2 obviously isn't a display markup language and IMO, that's a
very good thing. If it becomes a standard, Dreamweaver and GoLive will
support it eventually. That's not the real issue which is the need to
constantly relearn web design every few years. But I'm going to go out
on a limb and say that what we've all learned of web design is starting
to become less and less relevant in the marketplace. Web applications
and content management systems will take increasingly more of the
market. Let's face it; It's become pretty easy for someone with
FrontPage to throw out a web site, especially with decent templates,
and web logs are making it even easier for non-designers to publish to
the web. And, like it or not, dotNet IS happening. If designers don't
keep up they too will become less  relevant. Although XML in the XHTML
incarnation is more verbose than HTML, and not as intuitive, the
content is self describing which should make it much friendlier to
content management systems, databases and search engines. The web is
changing and we run the risk of becoming irrelevant if we don't
anticipate the changes and prepare for them.

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