Along the same lines of the XHTML Basic DTD argument ...
"HTML 4 is a powerful language for authoring Web content, but its
design does not take into consideration issues pertinent to small
devices, including the implementation cost (in power, memory, etc.) of
the full feature set. Consumer devices with limited resources cannot
generally afford to implement the full feature set of HTML 4. Requiring
a full-fledged computer for access to the World Wide Web excludes a
large portion of the population from consumer device access of online
information and services."
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/
.... goes the new CC/PP recommendation...
"As the number and variety of devices connected to the Internet grows,
there is a corresponding increase in the need to deliver content that
is tailored to the capabilities of different devices. Some limited
techniques, such as HTTP 'accept' headers and HTML 'alt=' attributes,
already exist."
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-CCPP-s...ocab-20040115/
OK, so let's take a look back at HTML4.0...
"HTML has been developed with the vision that all manner of devices
should be able to use information on the Web: PCs with graphics
displays of varying resolution and color depths, cellular telephones,
hand held devices, devices for speech for output and input, computers
with high or low bandwidth, and so on."
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40...tro/intro.html
.... and CSS2 ...
"Recognized media types (...)
handheld
Intended for handheld devices (typically small screen, monochrome,
limited bandwidth)."
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/media.html
Maybe the W3C should just close their doors, leave the website as it
is, and stop creating new recommendations until the old ones are
implemented correctly. They might even spend some time on a new site
which is just about pushing their older recommendations and explaining
them to non-technical people. Because believe it or not, I don't have
any problem to browse Strict pages with my hand phone, and -- as
opposed to the W3C itself -- still believe in their original idea.
The problem lies not within the idea or conception of HTML (which
admitted is not flawless). The problem is the popular implementation of
HTML found on the Web today. Nothing about any new W3C standards is
telling me their implementation will be any better. And if the W3C
wants to be taken seriously, they better believe in what they were
pushing yesterday, or we might not believe it when they are pushing
something in the future.
I just don't get it. Explanations welcome.