Re: [dev] (x)HTML-based office suite? (aka suckless word processing solution-2)

From: Uriel <lost.goblin_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:22:52 +0200

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Tor Aqissiaq
<toraqissiaq_AT_googlemail.com> wrote:
> The only reason XHTML did not replace HTML is because IE did not and
> does not support it. It is no more geekier than HTML.

Wrong, even on Firefox, Opera, and WebKit XHTML is badly broken and is
*slower* to parse than HTML. (Plus it breaks any site that depends on
document.write() which is an abomination in itself, but used almost
everywhere).

> But whether XHTML was or will be adopted by the internet is irrelevent
> to this discussion as it regards using XHTML for word processing.

Any discussion of using XHTML for word processing is irrelevant to any
person that is not suffering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy

uriel

> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Anselm R Garbe <anselm_AT_garbe.us> wrote:
>> 2009/10/18 Tor Aqissiaq <toraqissiaq_AT_googlemail.com>:
>>> What is wrong with XHTML? Are you implying that HTML is superior?
>>
>> Only geeks bother to adopt it. XHTML adoption is around 0.1% of all
>> web pages, and it is unlikely to take over the world. All browsers and
>> the web trend travel towards HTML5 for quite some time, there is
>> really no space left for XHTML...
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Anselm
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Mon Oct 19 2009 - 14:22:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Oct 19 2009 - 14:24:03 UTC