graham.reeds <graham.reeds@g...> wrote in
<31d599d0-1e55-4c1f-b7c9-c2bebc9d1add@i...>:
> OT:

That's not altogether OT here, although ciwah might be
somewhat more appropriate for this discussion.

> I agree with you on the v5 spec. I dunno why they 
> don't promote correct xhtml and css better rather than
> creating a spec that no-one needs.

Because at least one of the major UA vendors feels XHTML
would represent a somewhat more level playing field, where
it would be harder for them to achieve the lock-in they're
enjoying now. Naturally, that would be detrimental to their
business strategy, and for some reason or other, other W3C
members chose to comply with their wishes in the end.

> It seems to be diverging from what I remember of xhtml1.1
> (or was/is now 2.0?).

1.1 really was a fluke. It lost all of XHTML 1.0's
crufty 'compatibility' with HTML 4.01, and didn't offer
much in return. Since it was rolled out even before there
was any sort of real support for XHTML 1.0, it never even
had a chance. XHTML2 WG was chartered about a year ago, but
in my opinion Microsoft successfully torpedoed that effort
with the rechartering of HTML WG. Mobile profiles of XHTML
remain our last hope, really, at least we have some sort of
a wedge in the consumer market there, but it still remains
to be seen how much good it is going to do in the long run.

-- 
<>There is no phenotype</>