HTML to be 'Incrementally Evolved'

MrDrBob writes "It has been decided that HTML is going to be incrementally updated, as the W3C believe that their efforts with XHTML are going unnoticed or unused by many websites out there. HTML is going to be worked on in parallel with XHTML (but with no dependencies), with the W3C trying to evolve HTML to a point where it's easier and logical for everybody to transition to XHTML. However, their work is still going to attempt to improve HTML in itself, with work on forms moving towards transitioning into XForms, but bearing in mind the work done by Webforms. In addition, the W3C's HTML validator is going to get improved, with Tim Berners-Lee wanting it to 'check (even) more stuff, be (even) more helpful, and prioritize carefully its errors, warning and mild chidings'. This looks like a nice step forward for the W3C, and will hopefully leave all the squabbling and procrastination behind."

Please upgrade BLINK

[LiquidCoooled]

We cannot have new HTML without upgrading the best part of the web.

Example of server side blink [blartwendo.com]

Wonderful!?

Re:Please upgrade BLINK

[Anonymous Coward]

Server side blink's nothing. I want blink integrated into the database engine used for data storage. Imagine MySQL having blinkingtext field type. Wouldn't it rock?

Or maybe we should have blinking characters added to Unicode?

I'm sure these would be nice innovations that Microsoft could include in post-Vista Windows versions.

Kansas will ban this

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we all know God created HTML in 6 days, and evolution is impossible. ;-)

Re:Please upgrade BLINK

[drpimp]

My IE 4.01 came with Windows and the blink doesn't work. It was much larger installation than 300MB and it still doesn't work. Please explain!!!

Re:Please upgrade BLINK

[Mutatis Mutandis]

This seems to go back all the way to the days when Netscape "incrementally evolved" HTML too, and frustrated developers commented that its next set of new HTML tags would probably be peek and poke.

Re:becasue we dont care

[kfg]

. . .whatever the goal of xhtml is. . .

Marketing brochures and sales catalogs.

KFG

Re:A Waste of Time

[misleb]

Most people who use XHTML do so for the wrong reasons. Part of them do because it's the newest cool thing.

Yeah! People who write well formed, easy to parse XHTML documents when they don't necessarily have to are just sheep following a fad.

You know another group of people that annoy me? People who write properly indented, well documented ANSI C when everyone knows that gcc doesn't require it. Morons. I wish more people would only do the bare minimum required to compile/render their work.

-matthew