HTML5?
I'm missing something here. Why on earth would they go with HTML5 over XHTML 2 (or whatever version hasn't been spec'd yet.)
posted by Michael Sica at
8:21 PM
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
About Me
- Name: Michael Sica
Pudding launched! Pudding is a simple visual collaboration tool. You upload images and invite people to review, comment on, and approve your work.
Previous Posts
- Crazy IE Rendering Bug
- Feature Question - Comments?
- Butov on the Business of Software
- Pudding Discussion Group
- Return of the bloat, The Coop?
- Great First Round
- Still Working Toward Completion
- BETA!
- Beta Signup Form, live
- Capistrano, deploying from a local subversion repo...
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
4 Comments:
Hi Michael,
The reason as far as I can tell is that XHTML 2 has been in draft for ages and is a total dog's breakfast! It's quite far removed from a markup language that anyone can pick up. HTML5 represents something of a back to simplicity movement.
That makes sense. But I hope they aren't saying we should move away from the XML style of XHTML. I like it.
They could still call this new spec XHTML 3, and we could all just skip XHTML 2. :)
What do you mean by the XML style of XHTML? If you're talking about it being well-formed then HTML was always supposed to be well-formed anyway.
In actual fact, XHTML is almost always served as HTML anyway, because the browser support for serving it as XML simply isn't there yet. As you can see it's all a bit of a mess!
Furthermore, there's a really good write-up of the situation here: http://www.digital-web.com/articles/html5_xhtml2_and_the_future_of_the_web/
Post a Comment
<< Home