...

View Full Version : Another reason you shouldn't use the XHTML doctype



drhowarddrfine
07-02-2009, 09:53 PM
The W3C will close down work on XHTML2 by the end of the year.
FAQ (http://www.w3.org/2009/06/xhtml-faq.html)

Apostropartheid
07-02-2009, 10:22 PM
HTML5's ability to be used as an XML document kind of spelled its death. At least valuable resources have been released.

bazz
07-03-2009, 04:49 AM
So this will shortly be obsolete?



<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">



Does this mean xhtml 1.0 will continue?


W3C does not plan to revise the XHTML 1.0 Recommendation.

drhowarddrfine
07-03-2009, 03:25 PM
Yeah, after I posted this I realized I hadn't said anything about XHTML 1.0. Without giving it a lot of thought, I think it will just become deprecated in a way since HTML5 will absorb a lot of the constructs of XHTML2. Already many talk about that area of HTML5 as (X)HTML5 so that's where I think it is headed.

gsnedders
07-04-2009, 01:12 PM
I don't think XHTML 1.0 will become any more deprecated than HTML 4.01 will. HTML 3.2 hasn't been deprecated.

primefalcon
07-04-2009, 03:34 PM
Most of my pages are done in XHTML 1.0 since it's way easier to parse with JavaScript/PHP

bazz
07-04-2009, 04:02 PM
I don't think XHTML 1.0 will become any more deprecated than HTML 4.01 will. HTML 3.2 hasn't been deprecated.

That's what I thought and hoped the reponse would be. :)

It seems logical and also to be the convention that existing pages continue to work as they always did. OK so, I guess, it slows development because browsers have to be backwardly compatible but, we really don't want the following phrase to be true do we ? :D

"The Internet is broken".

And if someone has a ton of clients' sites to manage, they would have an awful lot of work to do to keep those sites working, where the client won't see the value in paying for that work.

bazz

abduraooft
07-04-2009, 04:05 PM
And if someone has a ton of clients' sites to manage, they would have an awful lot of work to do to keep those sites working, where the client won't see the value in paying for that work.
I'll wait until they make a final announcement :cool:

VIPStephan
07-04-2009, 04:11 PM
Not that I know anything about that but I’d guess if you coded your documents according to current standards with semantic markup and stuff you won’t have any problem converting/updating them to the newest standard. And the few things that need to be changed can then be done with a simple search and replace.

bazz
07-04-2009, 04:15 PM
hehe. let's hope the validator is up to speed from 'the off' then.

bazz

primefalcon
07-05-2009, 12:48 AM
This after them carrying on saying XHTML is the future and will replace HTML sheesh, :mad:

bazz
07-05-2009, 02:00 AM
This after them carrying on saying XHTML is the future and will replace HTML sheesh, :mad:

Yeh I, too, am fed up with people and organsations spouting their empty virtues. In my part of the world, 'permanent' lasted 2 years. Future is another spurious term. How long is their furture?

The sooner people get back to reality, - ironic in this fururistic technology, I know - the better.

Even if someone comes up with the worlds best invention, they should have a reality check - it's only good until the next one comes along. patents are one thing but, if they were good patents and meant something real, there wouldn't be another 'equally good' patent around the corner tomorrow - or even, today!!

I'll stop before a rant.

bazz

drhowarddrfine
07-05-2009, 02:30 AM
XHTML was NOT created to replace HTML.

Apostropartheid
07-05-2009, 11:09 AM
Indeed. XHTML was intended to supplement HTML. XHTML will live on in (X)HTML5, as you can choose to author XML-style documents if you wish.

jamesicus
07-06-2009, 04:33 AM
XHTML 1.0 served as text/html (which accounts for probably 99% of all implementations) is going to be around for years -- long after I "kick the bucket". It is just HTML anyway with well-formedness syntax constraints imposed. It will be around as long as HTML 4.01 is viable -- and that is going to be a long time. There is no way that multi-millions of web pages are going to be replaced by ones written in HTML 5 as a matter of course any time soon. There will be no need for that anyway because of backward compatibility requirements.

Keep on using your preferably HTML 4.01 and XHTML Doctypes (hopefully STRICT) -- serve your pages as text/html (that is the default serving mode for most Server software anyway) -- you will come to no harm. By the time HTML 5 is fully usable for web implementations most of you can have your grandchildren help you upgrade your pages.

James

primefalcon
07-06-2009, 09:32 PM
XHTML 1.0 served as text/html (which accounts for probably 99% of all implementations) is going to be around for years -- long after I "kick the bucket". It is just HTML anyway with well-formedness syntax constraints imposed. It will be around as long as HTML 4.01 is viable -- and that is going to be a long time. There is no way that multi-millions of web pages are going to be replaced by ones written in HTML 5 as a matter of course any time soon. There will be no need for that anyway because of backward compatibility requirements.

Keep on using your preferably HTML 4.01 and XHTML Doctypes (hopefully STRICT) -- serve your pages as text/html (that is the default serving mode for most Server software anyway) -- you will come to no harm. By the time HTML 5 is fully usable for web implementations most of you can have your grandchildren help you upgrade your pages.

James
Judging by how slow the W3C is about anything you prob have a point.... I've been waiting forever just to see css 3 become a properly supported standard fully, and largely those of us waiting are still waiting

drhowarddrfine
07-06-2009, 11:41 PM
Judging by how slow the W3C is about anything you prob have a point.... I've been waiting forever just to see css 3 become a properly supported standard fully, and largely those of us waiting are still waiting

The W3C is a standards body of sorts. Standards bodies do not typically invent anything, or at least they probably shouldn't. Standards arise from implementations. It is the browser vendors who must prove the implementations first and the W3C requires at least two implementations before the recommendation is approved. At least from what I recall.

jamesicus
07-10-2009, 05:35 AM
Per Ian Hixie -- GOOGLE guru and father of HTML 5:

Sending XHTML as text/html considered harmful (http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml)

In accordance with Mr. Hixie's current recommendation I am now using HTML 5 (just a little tongue-in-cheek here). Actually this is probably the way many web authors will begin to migrate their pages to HTML 5.

James

VIPStephan
07-10-2009, 10:56 AM
Yeah, I’ve just recently developed the first document defined as HTML 5. The good thing about this is that IE will still be in standards mode with the HTML 5 doctype so there’s actually not much to worry about as long as you don’t use the new elements and attributes that aren’t supported in many browsers yet. And I’m probably always gonna use the HTML 5 doctype from now on.

primefalcon
07-10-2009, 12:40 PM
does anyone have any good html5 sites that aren't w3c? their stuff is so damm dry.... I'm not asking for any run of the mil as I could just google myself and I have been, but wondering if there's any out there anyone likes in particular

jamesicus
07-10-2009, 03:31 PM
.......... The good thing about this is that IE will still be in standards mode with the HTML 5 doctype so there’s actually not much to worry about as long as you don’t use the new elements and attributes that aren’t supported in many browsers yet. And I’m probably always gonna use the HTML 5 doctype from now on.
Yes, the tongue-in-cheek is that my HTML 5 (sig block) page is just a HTML 4.01 (strict) page with the HTML 5 Doctype and correct headers applied. Right now the page displays correctly in all current User-Agent versions (Graphical Browsers: MSIE 6, 7 & 8; Firefox; Opera; Chrome; Safari) -- that augurs well for backward compatability. Of course, the big test for Browser rendering will come as new stable elements/attributes/constructs/properties are incorporated in the HTML 5 and CSS 3 specifications.

James

drhowarddrfine
07-10-2009, 07:51 PM
does anyone have any good html5 sites that aren't w3c?

HTML5 Doctor (http://html5doctor.com/)

jamesicus
07-10-2009, 08:01 PM
HTML5 Doctor (http://html5doctor.com/)
I am not very impressed with the 46 level 2.1 CSS validation errors and the 15 HTML 5 Markup validation errors.

James

primefalcon
07-11-2009, 01:05 AM
well the idea about validation error is to point out every possible error whether small or big, useful to us who tend towards strict type doc types.

I really do hope they keep closing of all tags though, thats the one thing that made XHTML so great

jamesicus
07-11-2009, 02:29 AM
deleted by me.

James

jamesicus
07-13-2009, 09:09 AM
XHTML as we presently know it will eventually disappear to become an integral component of HTML 5.

James

UrbanTwitch
07-29-2009, 09:44 PM
What's gonna happen to all XHTML-used pages? O_O

Apostropartheid
07-29-2009, 09:59 PM
Nothing. Why should anything happen? XHTML will remain a standard, it's just not going to be updated, much in the same way HTML 3.2 is still a standard.

MattF
07-29-2009, 10:48 PM
What's the alternative to a table summary with HTML5? Or is that just not implemented yet?



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum