[LINK] Killing the Web?

[KevinL]

Why XML vs. HTML?  The next version of HTML is, I understand, xHTML - 
XML-compliant HTML.  This can only be a good thing - it removes all the stupid 
little inconsistencies that plague learning HTML (witness <p> vs <br>, 
especially when you start introducing style sheets, which are abominable to 
work with atm because they're hideously inconsistent within themselves).

Besides, most of the things that article tilted at were completely 
irrelevant to the use of XML in web-based work.  XML, at it's core, is a neat 
system.  The fact that there's so many people producing strange extensions to 
it is kinda annoying, and kinda cool - give it time to settle down before 
passing judgement on XML in toto.  Meanwhile, it's helping people build stuff 
in a less platform-specific way, which is great for the devvies amongst us.

The trick with XML is it's attempted to codify those non-standard extensions - 
in theory, there should be a core set of immutables upon which all else is 
built.  In practice, it's not quite the case at the moment - but once the 
solid XML tools are gaining acceptance, various unused bits of the XML 
landscape should wither.  Imagine, as an example, if every web design company 
wrote their own browser - that's the situation we're in at the moment.  Wait 
until a few strong XML tools stand out in the slurry, you'll see 
standardisation around them.  That's what the process is all about, after all.

HTML has "nothing to worry about", because HTML and XML live comfortably side 
by side.  Standards can only exist with mass user acceptance - and while we 
don't have that right now, we are _bound_ to have heaps of people trying for 
it.  It's this phase that theoretically makes the end result stronger ;)

KevinL

>>> Fred Pilcher wrote
> At 12:42 6/10/00 +1100, Robin Whittle wrote:
> >http://www.zdnet.com.au/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2636521,00.html
> >
> >This article paints a depressing and probably realistic picture of
> >under-developed, complex, overly divergent (for commercial reasons)
> >standards.  "Standardsitis" - a condition well known to the IT industry
> >and people beavering away on ambitious standards committees.
> 
> Elegantly expressed, as always, Robin.
> 
> Then you said:
> >In electronics, things get better rapidly.  Components become more
> >capable, more compact, more reliable and cheaper.  If they were
> >inelegant or unreliable, they wouldn't last long.
> 
> And I'd like to think that the same principle will apply to XML. It was a
> good idea, but it's been so corrupted that it faces the fate of all
> non-standard standards. I've got a dollar that says HTML has nothing to
> worry about. Takers?
> 
> Fred
> 

KevinL