HTML to be 'Incrementally Evolved'

MrDrBob writes "It has been decided that HTML is going to be incrementally updated, as the W3C believe that their efforts with XHTML are going unnoticed or unused by many websites out there. HTML is going to be worked on in parallel with XHTML (but with no dependencies), with the W3C trying to evolve HTML to a point where it's easier and logical for everybody to transition to XHTML. However, their work is still going to attempt to improve HTML in itself, with work on forms moving towards transitioning into XForms, but bearing in mind the work done by Webforms. In addition, the W3C's HTML validator is going to get improved, with Tim Berners-Lee wanting it to 'check (even) more stuff, be (even) more helpful, and prioritize carefully its errors, warning and mild chidings'. This looks like a nice step forward for the W3C, and will hopefully leave all the squabbling and procrastination behind."

Comments

This is a response to the WHATWG and Hoehrmann

[YA_Python_dev]

I believe that this is a response to the actions of the WHATWG (Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group) (X)HTML 5 and to Bjoern Hoehrmann leaving the W3C QA.

So it's not a new pie-in-the-sky idea like XForms or XHTML2, but something much more likely to be useful to web developers that need to work in a world where IE is (still) the biggest fish.

Re:WHY XHTML are going unnoticed ?

[oyenstikker]

If your web site is part of a federal contract, it has to be compliant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_508

Mod parent up --- lack of iframe blocks Strict use

[Denyer]

Without iframes (currently supported by IE, Firefox and Opera, at least) 4.01 Strict isn't workable for most sites that rely on third-party content for advertising -- eg, ads from Amazon. And that's a large chunk of the web.

Re:More focus on standard the most will ignore.

[handslikesnakes]

> Isn't XHTML suppose to be a transition path to XML?

No, no, and still no. It is a specific application of XML.

Re:evolution of languages has to be gentle

[isomeme]

Small changes can be devastating. Example: why does XHTML backslashes in hr or br tags. These are completely unnecessary requirements.

Those aren't backslashes \, they are forward slashes /. And they're required because XHTML is a standards-compliant XML binding, and all valid XML documents must be well-formed. Well-formedness includes the requirement that all elements be closed. The <tag/> syntax is just shorthand for <tag></tag>.

This requirement isn't just bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. Ensuring that all (valid) XML documents follow rules like this is what makes them so easy to parse quickly and unambiguously.

XHML did not take off because who would want to wade through thousands of pages in HTML written during the last decade and make those changes?

There are automated tools (e.g., Tidy) that will do most of the work for static pages. But there really aren't "thousands of pages" to deal with; the HTML to XHTML conversion process is pretty simple.

The real problems with XHTML are:

1. It makes some common idioms, notably including embedded Javascript code, much more awkward to write correctly.
2. There's no payoff for most sites.

Item 2 is the real killer. If everyone is happily parsing "tag soup" HTML, which is often not compliant to any standard, why jump through the hoops (however easy those jumps might be) to comply with a standard that brings no immediate benefit?