Comment Re:Why WG? (Score 1) 311
Ah ... the old "move the goalposts trick" (or in your case, take them off the pitch completely). Nice move.
However, if you recall I was replying to your assertion that what I wanted (an application building environment that enables distributed applications without resorting to C++ and Java) already existed in the form of Mozilla. I disagreed with you, and said (since you asked me to expand on it) that XForms was quite different to this platform, and in fact much more powerful.
You now say that everyone agrees that adoption of XForms is desirable (I'm pleased to hear that you've now had the chance to take a look at XForms), but that we should take it a step at a time ("... some people are still using the font tag") - so I guess that means that you're at least happy with my main points that Mozilla does not currently provide a suitable plaform to develop web-based applications with.
Your new discussion about whether people's readiness to adopt something is a criteria for its use is, with respect, completely illogical.
Anyway, a few final quick things:
(1) XHTML 2 is not yet a standard, so you are indeed on safe ground when you point out the limited browser support.
(2) As it happens, most web pages probably are built with XHTML 1, since that is simply the XML version of HTML 4 - and since an enormous number of web pages nowadays will be being generated using XML processing they will therefore be using XHTML 1.
(3) Your assertion that SVG is marginal will receive a very big shake-up in the next year, since mobile phones will shortly be including a version of it.
However, if you recall I was replying to your assertion that what I wanted (an application building environment that enables distributed applications without resorting to C++ and Java) already existed in the form of Mozilla. I disagreed with you, and said (since you asked me to expand on it) that XForms was quite different to this platform, and in fact much more powerful.
You now say that everyone agrees that adoption of XForms is desirable (I'm pleased to hear that you've now had the chance to take a look at XForms), but that we should take it a step at a time ("... some people are still using the font tag") - so I guess that means that you're at least happy with my main points that Mozilla does not currently provide a suitable plaform to develop web-based applications with.
Your new discussion about whether people's readiness to adopt something is a criteria for its use is, with respect, completely illogical.
Anyway, a few final quick things:
(1) XHTML 2 is not yet a standard, so you are indeed on safe ground when you point out the limited browser support.
(2) As it happens, most web pages probably are built with XHTML 1, since that is simply the XML version of HTML 4 - and since an enormous number of web pages nowadays will be being generated using XML processing they will therefore be using XHTML 1.
(3) Your assertion that SVG is marginal will receive a very big shake-up in the next year, since mobile phones will shortly be including a version of it.
