So again (after doing the same thing with XHTML 1.1), the W3C might be backing off of plans for a more advances web, and leaving it to yet another version of HTML. Right now the W3C has working groups for developing both XHTML 2 and HTML 5. While XHTML 2.0 is a real advancement, and is XML-based, strictly XML (like what XHTML 1.1 would be theoretically, if served as application/xhtml and the browsers supported it), HTML 5 was first drafted by the WHATWG, which represents the browser vendors. It aims to be backwards-compatible (I’m not sure why, it’s about time people update their browsers).
Which is better? I’d bet on XHTML 2. Which will win the race? As much as I hate to admit, probably XHTML 5, which has the backing of the browser vendors (lazy idiots, get some real work done, espeacily you morons from redmond)
Here are some good resources:
HTML5, XHTML2, and the Future of the Web
X/HTML 5 Versus XHTML 2
XHTML 2 and HTML 5 – who will win?
15 Responses to “XHTML 2 and HTML 5 – who will win?”
Leave a Reply
Categories
Archives
So “real work” is work that doesn’t benefit end users?
All users will benefit if the browsers are up to date with latest technologies.
IE 7 was launched not long ago. All they added was some front end nonsense, it’s just as bad in (not) supporting standards.
Do you think “latest” automatically equals “better”? Can you imagine a standards body ever producing a specification that is worse than its predecessor, such that it would be harmful or near-useless for anyone to implement it?
Latest doesn’t automatically mean better, but XHTML is superior by far.
For instance, the XHTML standard, with it’s stricter rules, meant that websites built in XHTML had to be built with much more care, and were more likely to look the same across browsers. the markup actually makes sense, and it’s valid XML which has it’s many benefits.
I’m not sure what you mean by “stricter rules”. The parsing rules for HTML 5 (which are a reflection of the HTML parsing rules implemented in real-world Web browsers) are very detailed. By “stricter” do you really mean more fragile, less likely to produce a readable document? If so, how does that benefit end users?
Did you know that because you’re serving your Web site as text/html rather than application/xhtml+xml, every major browser is treating it as invalid HTML rather than as valid XHTML? The only reason your Web site works at all is because those “lazy idiot” browser vendors put so much time, effort, and intelligence into guessing what your invalid HTML is supposed to mean.
No,
If the browsers were up to date, i’d be serving it as application/xhtml+xml and have all the full benefits of XML
The only reason you’ve given so far for preferring XHTML 2 is that it’s XML. Are you aware that the HTML 5 specification defines an XML serialization, known as XHTML 5? The specification advises against using XML on the Web, but whether you agree with that advice, it would apply just as much to XHTML 2 as it does to XHTML 5.
So now I’m wondering if you have any reasons for preferring XHTML 2 over XHTML 5.
Well, mainly that XHTML 2 is visionary, and (X)HTML 5 is about doing what’s possible with browser limitations, and not being to hard for lazy content authors.
Some day the web will need to move beyond old HTML, and XHTML 2 is a huge leap forward.
If (X)HTML 5 is about not being too hard for authors who are too lazy to use XHTML 2, then the English language is about not being too hard for authors who are too lazy to use Esperanto.
Thank you for this interesting discussion.
Thank you, i enjoyed it equally. They’re obviously 2 ides to this coin, and this whole subject is pretty damn interesting.
I’ll use XHTML 1.1 until XHTML 2 is supported by Firefox, Opera and Safari (The only browsers that matter). Remember: with IE, we are still waiting for full CSS2 support…
> “I’ll use XHTML 1.1 until XHTML 2 is supported by Firefox, Opera and Safari”
Browser support for XHTML2 is pencilled in for shortly after hell freezes over. It’s a dead as a dodo. Everything you’ve been told is wrong, it’s time to update your worldview.
(And in accordance with prophecy, you’re serving XHTML1.1 as text/html. One day you’ll thank me for pointing this out.)
I am well aware that I am serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html. XHTML is a more strict language, and if the entire web was XHTML (served as application/xhtml), browsers would be easier to write, with no ‘guessing’ about proper syntax.
Well this is a intresting discussion but i have to agree with Jason and mpt
Thit world ain’t ideal and i have more problems with lazy web authors then making layouts work in XHTML
so i use just html and make it as good as i can
But the thing is there is no real reason to use XHTML right now, besides the name spaces and how really uses them? I have heard there is almost no one working on the XHTML 2 spec right now, so do you think I am going to move in that direction? No!
Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of XHTML. Just no one uses it right. The amount of sites calming to be XHTML valid, that are very invalid is not funny, it is being used so wrongly. Most of my HTML is closer to XHTML.