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."

5 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
    1. Re:Good by Hurricane78 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The main key is, that, while HTML5 is based on the superior SGML (because of more freedom), XHTML had started to enforce strictness and cleanness. This meant the browser did not have to support a ton of typos, just because the editor was a freakin' lazy ass. Imagine a compiler that would eat any typo. Missing brackets, braces, semicolons, object-function separators, completely meaningless semantic messes. HTML4 browsers eat it all.

      It is horrible, and actively supports the dumbing down of people. (Those who want to write websites.)
      Face it: If they have to, they will learn it. Nobody is too stupid for that. Some just repeat so often that they are stupid, that they actually become stupid. But this can be reversed in exactly the same way. (Ask any psychotherapist about self-fulfilling prophecies.)

      Another great feature of XHTML, was its modularity and cross-language features.
      You could integrate XHTML, SVG, MathML, etc, into one document. Imagine a P tag inside a SVG circe, containing a math formula, and you begin to understand the sheer power of that concept.

      Now if they implement HTML5 right, and we get the same cleanness that XHTML 1.1 had (Strict only. No transitional shit.), and they add cross-language abilities too (trough SGML), then I'm all for it!
      But if not, this could be a huge step backwards, into the web development mess of IE6 times!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  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:XHTML merged by Phroggy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    XHTML would have been great standard.

    When fed invalid XHTML, the browser chokes, which would have gone a long way to eliminating much of the crap code, and crap "web developers" out there.
    I don't see why it's the browsers business to be THAT lenient, and second guess the developer all the time.

    The problem is, a lot of web pages today are not a single coherent document, they're a bunch of little code fragments concatenated together (template, content, advertising, etc.). When coders get sloppy, this can result in invalid markup. When browsers choke, the content producer may have no idea how to fix the problem - it may not even be their problem.

    What HTML5 tries to do is clearly define exactly how broken markup is supposed to be handled, so all browsers can try to "second guess the developer" in exactly the same way.

    Kudos to Firefox for reigniting the browser war. In Browser War 2.0, all the major players are striving toward standards compliance, trying to bring their behavior in line with a single unified goal instead of adding their own proprietary features to HTML itself. Five years from now, when IE6 and IE7 are as distant a memory as IE4 and IE5 are now, web development is going to be a lot easier.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;