Re: TAG case; XHTML; Flame Wars.

by "Peter-Paul Koch" <gassinaumasis(at)hotmail.com>

Date:	Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:15:17 GMT
To:	c.higgs(at)landfood.unimelb.edu.au, gassinaumasis(at)hotmail.com
Cc:	hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
	todo: View Thread, Original

>At 07:36 28/06/00 +0000, you wrote:
>>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.
>
>Question 1: Of what value will "onMouseOver" events be to a mobile phone
>user?  Why include specifications that are irrelevant to the device?

None whatsoever, but a mobile phone user won't get any mouseover because a 
mouseover is something typical to HTML, which the mobile phone doesn't 
support.

'They' (the normal browsers, Netscape, Explorer, Opera) will continue to 
support HTML, but WAP sites are a completely different thing using a 
different client side language: WML. So this situation will never occur.

>Question 2: If I "surfed" to a site using a mobile phone, and found a
>telephone number, wouldn't it make sense to "link" that phone number so I
>could autodial it?  Does HTML have an autodial function?  I'm sure XHTML
>will cope.

Again, wrong comparision. A HTML browser doesn't (shouldn't) get the mobile 
phone page because it needs HTML, not WML.

>The purpose of XHTML is that it begins the modularisation of HTML.  This
>can later be linked with Profiles to simplify the server-side
>transformations you keep talking about.

I've understood that this is W3C's intention, but I still wonder if XHTML 
will be that important. Straight XML -> HTML seems enough to me.

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