General: XHTML Dead, Long live HTML5
- This is not specifically an EW issue, but it does go to the future of Web development. It appears that the current versions of XHTML will be the last, at least if the actions of the W3C are any guide. The XHTML Working Group will be permitted to expire at the end of 2009, and resources will be applied to HTML5 instead. Here's the article:
http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/xhtml-2-language-dumped-in-favor-html-5-036?source=IFWNLE_nlt_wrapup_2009-07-03
What do you think? Good? Bad? Indifferent?
cheers,
scott
Все ответы
- Indifferent. Can't change what the new standards will be, just have to adapt as required. Website design is about adapting in a constantly changing environment and this is no different.
--
Chris Hanscom - Microsoft MVP
Veign on Facebook | Resource Center | Veign's Blog | Web Development Help
Get a Complete Website Analysis by Veign - Personally I intensely dislike XHTML 1.1 and the modularization of XHTML that started there. So I'm rather in the camp that XHTML 2.0 was not worth pursing.
I use xhtml 1.0 because I want the well formed code which makes it easier to troubleshoot.
MS MVP Expression Tutorials & Help http://by-expression.com and online instructor led Expression Classes - I'm with Chris on this one, Scott. We'll just have to roll with the punches, and keep our learning hats securely fastened while the winds of change continue to blow.
-Preston
Columbia, CA. USA http://www.gildedmoon.com- ИзмененоPreston B 3 июля 2009 г. 22:49typo
- What we have here is yet another solution looking for a problem.
The XHTML Working Group could not find a problem so we will abandon it
and see if the HTML5 group can find one.
;-)
FrontPage MVP - It seems the consensus is pretty much what I felt when I read about this—indifference, at best. I didn't have much quarrel with XHTML 1.0 Transitional. It wasn't radically different from HTML, and did have the advantage of encouraging well-formedness and validity. Beyond that, however, things got strange quickly.
It seems to me that "they" (the working group, presumably) forgot the meaning of the "X" in XHTML. Rather than permit the flexibility to extend the markup language in the way that implies, it seemed that it was becoming more and more restrictive. XHTML Strict requiring a container for anchor tags?! Excuse me? Hyperlinks are the very foundation of the Web, and I don't see where such a requirement furthers any reasonable objective whatsoever, either structurally or semantically.
One thing, at least; this means we have one less set of conflicting "standards" to worry about. That is, until HTML5 hits the scene... ;-)
cheers,
scott - In preparation for HTML 5 I created an HTML5 Quick Reference Guide . This is the first release. Next release will probably define all the new attributes that are coming.
After really looking at the new tags and attributes, for the reference guide, I see alot of things about HTML 5 that I really like.
--
Chris Hanscom - Microsoft MVP
Veign on Facebook | Resource Center | Veign's Blog | Web Development Help
Get a Complete Website Analysis by Veign
