XHTML Modularization - the way to go?

Mark Baker (mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM)
Wed, 14 Apr 1999 17:16:51 -0400


What's the concensus on this modularization effort? I haven't seen
squat written about the impact this might have on content developers
and their ability to have their stuff viewed everywhere. While a
*technically* admirable goal, modularization, plus a conceptual
framework for defining new extensions, would appear to me to be a
real danger to interoperability between browsers and servers.

Let's say the Palm Pilot had shipped with support for just a very
small subset of HTML. Suddenly, if you're a content developer and
you want to have your content seen everywhere, *WHAM*, you're
reduced to supporting that small subset.

And I'm sure we can count on MS to abuse this to the max, extending
semantic modules willy-nilly, likely with O2K parameters and elements,
and using IEs market share to push this as the defacto standard.
Granted, XHTML might not actually matter to anybody, but if it does,
then this concerns me.

I know this isn't the first or last time that extension frameworks
have been defined, so what have been some of the lessons learned in
the past? What about HTTP? We've seen what MS are doing with it ...

Mark "semantically modular" Baker

Mark Baker                 Personal Apps Lead, Sun Microsystems Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.   http://java.sun.com/products/personalapps