Please submit all your “unclarities” (sic) to the W3C HTML Working Group.

Thanks!

Jeff

svg is working so well nowadays (well if one uses inkscape, adobe illustrator and firefox 2 in conjunction … other combinations probably too…) so why cripple it?

I am currently converting my website to “text/xml”, because i don’t just want code that works ( document/webapp to look right) because of current browser quirks. I expect my written code to need minimal (none?) adjustments to look right in “a yet to be invented editor/viewer” supporting the standard i’ve written in. And i want it to look right in 50years. So the more rigid the Standard the better.

It is all about being standards compliant, because compliance of editors/viewers IS and WILL increase.

i just don’t see whats the difference in producing XML compliant code nowadays… just take an compliant xhtml editor, wiki, weblog, svg editor … they ARE all here. sure, if you write xml/xhtml/etc. by hand and make something wrong you get a nice “XML error” instead of your page but well it is kinda like grammar… no one likes it but having none would make things so much worse… and XHMTL is fairly easy to master….

ps: i don’t really understand what all the fuss is about (X)HTML5… i’ve gone through the spec and i see many unclarities and nothing that hasn’t been done better in the working drafts of XHTML2.