Comments on: Why Tim Berners-Lee is Wrong

By: Elliotte Rusty Harold

Elliotte Rusty Harold — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:09:21 +0000

For some reason this post seems to attract a disproportionate amount of Polish copy-spam. That is, spam that copies previous sentences in the post and the comments. Consequently I’m disabling further comments. If you really want to say something about this, drop me an e-mail.

By: renatura

renatura — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 20:26:57 +0000

I dont no how is Berners-lee. I now xhtml and html and css. what he say is what I’m doing every day…
do it do not talk.

By: luklis

luklis — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:37:01 +0000

I haven’t read what Tim Berners-Lee said, but the issue with XHTML adoption is that there is very little incentive to “upgrade”… couple that with the fact that current support for (X)HTML/CSS/JS in the blue e, is lackluster at best (yeah, we’re talking IE7 here), there’s little point moving to the bleeding edge, when the browser most users are stuck with, can’t keep up with specs, and from all appearances, has no interest in doing so.

By: Stu

Stu — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:44:47 +0000

What’s the problem with namespaces? Every single new element the WhatWG is suggesting could have been done with them and, with some of their undeniable benefits, could have helped to spur adoption of XHTML.

Why couldn’t they just say “Look, we’ve created this spec using our namespace. If you add to a compliant XHTML document then all these browsers (Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc.) will work with it. Same with . Just add our namespace and it’ll work!”.

Anyone not using XHTML gets HTML4 mode, ignoring the namespaced stuff. Anyone using XHTML gets the good stuff. I know what I’d do.

As it is, I feel a disturbance in the force

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:47:43 +0000

I do remember an RFC on tables layout being referenced but the major browsers didnâ€™t conform to it. HTML is not unique every spec Iâ€™ve seen from the w3c is poor (XML, SOAP, XML Schemaâ€¦.). The w3c also doesnâ€™t seem to know how to manage a standard

By: Chriseo

Chriseo — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 09:57:12 +0000

Is that true? I read all the article including the comments. Is XHTML 2.0 not backwards compatible? Thanks for an answer in advance!

By: Desenie

Desenie — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:45:16 +0000

Very nice article! I’ve heard rumors about XHTML 2.0 that it will not be backwards compatible. Meaning when it comes out, earlier versions of xhtml/html will not work.

By: baby

baby — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:29:59 +0000

I certainly donâ€™t disagree with any of the comments that have already shown up here, or with the initial post. There are clearly some problems and ultimately the WC3 must shoulder the bulk of the blame. Even so, when I step back and look at things from a long perspective, I find it fascinating that we become so out of joint over the fact that a product hasnâ€™t been improved quickly enough. The car was introduced over a hundred years ago and still has some kinks that need to be ironed out. Yet we grow ever more impatient at the rate computer design seems to develop. Additionally, though, there seem to be so many components to consider in our computer universe determining which is most essential is a difficult task. Is it the issue of standards? Should we all be trying to focus on the shift to slimmed down web pages that can be accessed via mobile devices? At this point, the future of most of our technology still seems so much in flux that from a designerâ€™s point of view, I would expect that it would be hard to decide which project to commit to.

By: Martino

Martino — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:10:55 +0000

I think these blog is really useful for new comers and Excellent resource list.

By: John Lee

John Lee — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:01:56 +0000

I think it is time to change â€“time to leave behind old & conservative traits and accept new realities. Internet has grown too big and technology/coding/programming has developed to much to stick by the old horses.