|
|
|
|
|
by dextorious
5302 days ago
|
|
"""XHTML was poised to offer much more than "correctedness". Reliable validation, custom DTDs, extensions, better interoperability. It just wasn't meant for the general web, where you have a massive number of non-technical authors.""" You just retold the whole of his Python 3 argument in terms of XHTML. P3 was also poised to offer more than "correctedness", and also "wasn't meant for the general real world where you have a massive number of different systems". """I don't think this comparison has any place in this discussion.""" Actually it's the perfect analogy. XHTML -> add correctness, some new features, idealistic, unsuitable for the real world, didn't catch on. Python 3 -> add correctness, some new features, idealistic, unsuitable for the real world, didn't catch on. |
|
I agree. Comparing markup languages to programming languages is even worse than comparing js to assembly. But since we are on the topic... I am not quite sure i undestand what " xhtml is unsuitable for the real world" means. Xhtml is a contract between a content author and a browser. Why do we call the browser's failure to implement the contract "unsuitable for the real world"?