Skip to main content

Diigo Home

Siding with HTML over XHTML, My Decision to Switch - Monday By Noon - The Diigo Meta page

mondaybynoon.com/...er-xhtml-my-decision-to-switch - Cached - Annotated View

Gary Edwards's personal annotations on this page

garyedwards
Garyedwards bookmarked on 2008-07-03 html xhtml css javascript

A CMS expert argues for HTML over XHTML, explaining his reasons for switching. Excellent read! He nails the basics. for similar reasons, we moved from ODF to ePUB and then to CDf and finally to the advanced WebKit document model, where wikiWORD will make it's stand.

  • Publishing content on the Web is in no way limited to professional developers or designers, much of the reason the net is so active is because anyone can make a website. Sure, we (as knowledgeable professionals or hobbyists) all hope to make the Web a better place by doing our part in publishing documents with semantically rich, valid markup, but the reality is that those documents are rare. It’s important to keep in mind the true nature of the Internet; an open platform for information sharing.

  • XHTML2 has some very good ideas that I hope can become part of the web. However, it’s unrealistic to think that all web authors will switch to an XML-based syntax which demands that browsers stop processing the document on the first error. XML’s draconian policy was an attempt to clean up the web. This was done around 1996 when lots of invalid content entered the web. CSS took a different approach: instead of demanding that content isn’t processed, we defined rules for how to handle the undefined. It’s called “forward-compatible parsing” and means we can add new constructs without breaking the old.


    So, I don’t think XHTML is a realistic option for the masses. HTML 5 is it.

  • @marbux: Of course i disagree with your interop assessment, but I wondered how it is that you’re missing the point. I think you confuse web applications with legacy desktop – client/server application model. And that confusion leads to the mistake of trying to transfer the desktop document model to one that could adequately service advancing web applications.

This link has been bookmarked by 3 people . It was first bookmarked on 03 Jul 2008, by Gary Edwards.

  • 10 Jul 08
    oneeye
    Tom Hamsher

    Some time ago, I came across an article which included some great links to publications by major browser vendors outlining their preference concerning HTML vs. XHTML:

    * Mozilla Web Author FAQ
    * WebKit: Understanding HTML, XML, and XHTML
    * The Future of Web Standards: Interview with Håkon Wium Lie
    * IEBlog: The <?xml> prolog, strict mode, and XHTML in IE

    html xhtml webdesign

  • 08 Jul 08
    marbux
    Paul Merrell

    • suppose that HTML5 is good enough if the only interoperability you are concerned with is that between web page server and desktop browser. But it is massively underspecified as a standard for exchange of web documents between web applications. Likewise the CSS2 class libraries, which are virtually worthless for the purpose because the CSS is typically defined in site templates rather than in the web documents themselves.


      For example, I can go to any number of web applications and find myself creating different custom markup to identify a footnote call or a footnote, including Mr. Lie’s Prince software. And were I to attempt to exchange web documents among, e.g., Wikimedia, WordPress, Google Docs, and Zoho Writer, my only hope is to recode content manually.

  • 03 Jul 08
    garyedwards
    Gary Edwards

    A CMS expert argues for HTML over XHTML, explaining his reasons for switching. Excellent read! He nails the basics. for similar reasons, we moved from ODF to ePUB and then to CDf and finally to the advanced WebKit document model, where wikiWORD will make it's stand.

    html xhtml css javascript

    • Publishing content on the Web is in no way limited to professional developers or designers, much of the reason the net is so active is because anyone can make a website. Sure, we (as knowledgeable professionals or hobbyists) all hope to make the Web a better place by doing our part in publishing documents with semantically rich, valid markup, but the reality is that those documents are rare. It’s important to keep in mind the true nature of the Internet; an open platform for information sharing.

    • XHTML2 has some very good ideas that I hope can become part of the web. However, it’s unrealistic to think that all web authors will switch to an XML-based syntax which demands that browsers stop processing the document on the first error. XML’s draconian policy was an attempt to clean up the web. This was done around 1996 when lots of invalid content entered the web. CSS took a different approach: instead of demanding that content isn’t processed, we defined rules for how to handle the undefined. It’s called “forward-compatible parsing” and means we can add new constructs without breaking the old.


      So, I don’t think XHTML is a realistic option for the masses. HTML 5 is it.

    • 1 more annotations...

Top Tags