tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2441850399540300710.post5976325393455589796..comments2024-02-17T03:47:06.818-08:00Comments on CraigBlog: Know When Not to Plan to Use XHTMLCraig Anderahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17084199593129216563noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2441850399540300710.post-38323706405653577702003-04-18T07:47:00.000-07:002003-04-18T07:47:00.000-07:00Ian talks about the browser UAs. Most of the RSS ...Ian talks about the browser UAs. Most of the RSS feed is consumed by aggregrator UAs, which apply a stylesheet over the RSS item to generate HTML.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2441850399540300710.post-85762784860023499082003-04-13T02:47:00.000-07:002003-04-13T02:47:00.000-07:00I have no problem with renaming. But I think I dis...I have no problem with renaming. But I think I disagree with the reasoning about not using it. If we didn't use things simply because they were poorly designed, we'd all be pushing abacus beads around. I think the appropriate approach is to use things as well as we can and make a hell of a lot of noise about how much they suck in the meantime.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2441850399540300710.post-44719986166291069522003-04-13T00:25:00.000-07:002003-04-13T00:25:00.000-07:00Here's the thing though. It appears XHTML 2.0 ...Here's the thing though. It appears XHTML 2.0 was designed with absolutely no forethought to backward-compatability to 1.0. How do we send the message to the W3C about how _wrong_ that is? By using it in it's current configuration are we not sending the wrong message?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com