Slashdot Mirror


XHTML 2 Cancelled

Jake Lazaroff writes "According to the W3 News Archive, the charter for the XHTML2 Working Group — set to expire on December 31st, 2009 — will not be renewed. What does this mean? XHTML2 will never be a W3C recommendation, so get on the HTML 5 bandwagon now. According to the XHTML FAQ, however, the W3C does 'plan for the XML serialization of HTML to remain compatible with XML.' Looks like with HTML 5, we'll get the best of both worlds."

6 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Good by orta · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know a lot of web developers who dont know the difference between XHTML and HTML, and I hear XHTML as a buzzword all the time. The less confusion the better in my opinion. The HMTL5 spec is quite readable,but if you've not taken a stab at working with HTML5 (it runs all browsers) yet this article should be pretty useful: http://www.phpguru.org/static/html5

    --
    my band is more brutal techno punk than yours
  2. Re:XHTML merged by RaceProUK · · Score: 5, Informative

    They should have XMLized HTML in the first place.

    They did. It's called XHTML.

    Unless you mean XML-ise HTML 3.2 or earlier, but I believe XML didn't exist back then.

    --
    No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
  3. Sounds like a few people are confused... by MassacrE · · Score: 5, Informative

    XHTML 1 was the XML-ization of the existing HTML 4 stuff.

    XHTML 2 was a new HTML version that sought to remove lots of HTML cruft (including non-XML syntax) and add new capabilities. Basically, it was working toward a new HTML version. This effort has died, because browser makers are not behind it - they are all behind HTML 5.

    HTML 5 has always had an XML profile called XHTML 5, and that won't go away.

  4. Re:No more compound documents? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It also deprecated a lot of the older tags that were made obsolete by CSS hence encouraging better separation of document structure and presentation. Unfortunately HTML5 undoes this particular good work because it caters to the lowest common denominator (i.e. bad developers who don't "get" separation of concerns and trivially parsable markup).

    I think you read a different version of HTML 5 to me. It still deprecates or removes all of the tags that HTML 4 and XHTML 1 removed, for example removing the center and font tags which were only deprecated by HTML 4.

    Where it introduces new tags, it is for expressiveness. A lot of the 'separation of content and presentation' folks seem to think that HTML just needs three tags; span, div, and object. HTML 5 doesn't add more presentation elements, but it does add more tags with well-defined semantics. Examples of this include section and nav tags. These don't specify anything about the presentation, they just indicate that a part of the document is a section, or a set of navigation commands. A mobile browser, for example, might have an option to hide and show the nav section to conserve screen space.

    Take a look at the current draft of HTML 5. You'd be hard-pressed to find anything presentation-related. Presentation still goes in the stylesheets, HTML 5 just adds tags for common things so you don't need quite so many class attributes.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. Re:No more compound documents? by Bogtha · · Score: 4, Informative

    Unlike HTML 4, HTML 5 doesn't specify the representation. It has SGML and XML bindings. HTML 5 with the SGML binding looks like classic HTML

    No, HTML 5 has an XML serialisation and a tag-soup-compatible serialisation that, yes, looks like classic HTML, but in fact isn't based on SGML. It's based on the way popular browsers parse HTML rather than what they are supposed to do according to previous HTML specifications. One consequence of this is that obscure parts of previous versions of HTML that are not well-supported by popular browsers are not supported by HTML 5 - it's not completely backwards-compatible with previous versions of HTML.

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  6. Re:HTML 5 parsing is just awful. by Tiles · · Score: 4, Informative

    Now try to imagine Microsoft, Opera, Mozilla, and Google implementing that compatibly.

    I believe they already do, for the most part. HTML5 parsing rules were mostly reverse-engineered from existing browsers' HTML parsing rules, which are more or less consistent across modern browsers, so it's only documenting what most existing browsers already do.

    What the spec is defining is a limited subset of an SGML-like language (whose entire parsing rules, if incorporated into HTML, would span for pages) and how to transform it into a DOM. It isn't mandating any new parser rules, it only documents them for the benefit of new implementations of the spec, and to align what minor variations there are between browser parsing models together. Compared to SGML rules (of which HTML 4.01 is technically a subset), this is a great improvement.