The Future of HTML [Archive] - CodingForums.com

SDP2006

07-06-2003, 07:03 PM

How much longer do you all think HTML will last?

Thanks

COBOLdinosaur

07-06-2003, 07:31 PM

Depends on what you mean. It will continue to be the gateway for other technologies as long as there is a need for web pages. If you mean how long before XHTML is the norm 3 to 4 years. However brwsers will coninue to support HTML forever, the millions of static pages that are marked down in straight HTML are still going to be there.

Cd&

MotherNatrsSon

07-06-2003, 07:33 PM

3 to 7 years depending on how long it takes for the older browsers to not work any longer and older machines to "die"....Personally, I like the simplicity of html as oppossed to css and xhtml and really do not understand why they are pushing for these changes so hard. It is and will make the web less and less usable for the average person. Less and less accessable for anyone to be able to put a page up and get it online. We must conform....Zieg Heil baby......

MNS

brothercake

07-06-2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
Personally, I like the simplicity of html as oppossed to css and xhtml and really do not understand why they are pushing for these changes so hard. It is and will make the web less and less usable for the average person. Less and less accessable for anyone to be able to put a page up and get it online. We must conform....Zieg Heil baby......

MNS
Give it a rest mate - don't critisize something just because you don't understand it. And please don't fall into that sadly-too-common trap - regarding those who push for standards compliance of trying to force people to 'conform' like we're some kind of enemies of free thinking - it isn't like that at all, and you just end up confusing people who have less experience than yourself.

The reason for pushing for these changes is that XHTML focuses on the semantics of data markup - it allows webpages to be more accessible, more compatible with non-standard browsers, easier for robots to index, and easier for the average developer like you and me to make and maintain them. Sure, it's a learning curve, but so is everything.

Presentational HTML, as in tables for layout, spacing gifs, and visual markup like , is already years out of date; browsers should continue to support it, but nobody should still be making it, imho.

oracleguy

07-07-2003, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by brothercake
Presentational HTML, as in tables for layout, spacing gifs, and visual markup like , is already years out of date; browsers should continue to support it, but nobody should still be making it, imho.

I agree.

No new websites/pages should be written below XHTML 1.0 Transitional standards. HTML 4.01 is obsolete.

I think about 3-5 years before XHTML is completely the norm. The biggest hurdle will be people using old WYSIWYGs that generate old code. And old versions of programs like ImageReady that people will use to generate their sliced design in tables.

MotherNatrsSon

07-07-2003, 05:20 AM

Hopefully all those hardcore coders and programmers are busy making software that will put out validatable code. Oh s**t ImageReady 7 and Dreamweaver MX both put out validatable code. And if I choose it, Dreamweaver MX will put out validatable xhtml. That is what I am willing to pay for. I can figure out software pretty easily. Having to know CSS and all the various hacks that seem to make it work (read the html/css forum here)along with javascript and xhtml just to get a site up and running is going to put the web in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and to me that is not a good thing.

My understanding of this "validation" thing is that as long as I have a doctype at the top of my page and it validates using that doctype, it should be able to be read for a long, long time even if it is 4.01 html transitional or strict. Am I wrong?

So all the pages that are on the web that do not have a doctype, let alone "validated" code, are all just going to disappear? Ya right. Is the "darkness" creeping into the net too?

MNS

sage45

07-07-2003, 06:22 AM

This is a more appropriate topic for the Technology discussion forum... Moving this to the Technology discussion forum...

-sage-

raf

07-07-2003, 10:51 AM

MNS,

I really don't understand your point of view (as i said before) or why you keep on complaining about new technologiys/standards. Whats your point? That they are new? That not everyone knows them and that people will have to study to get a personal site running?
They will just use a codegenerator like they do now. They woun't even know anything changed. (Maybe they will, cause they wouldn't need to worry about keeping there layout uniform anymore)

And webtechnology isn't only there for people who just wanna get a page running. (My personal opinion is that almost all these sites are ugly, difficult to navigate, pointless, outdated and redundant.) Technology shouldn't be 'frozen' just because noone then needs to learn a few tricks or download/buy a new tool.
About 15 years ago, when i really started using computers, you needed to know DOS and textediting was in WP (all editing had to be fone with functionkey are tags) and computers were real expensive and you needed to take some classes before you could ever get a nice letter out of the printer. Maybe we should have put a stop to that terribel and undemocratical information technology then. Or a few years later whan windows started spreading. Or maybe a few year later, when the web started booming but when you needed to learn HTML-code to write a webpage. Hosting wasn't even free ! And these animated gifs were hard to make ! How undemocratic that was ! Most people couldn't even grasp the concept of a 'link'. You started to read a text at the top (of a page or chapter or ...). The concept of separating your content from the layout is quite similar, but within a few years, it will become obvious to most people and a quite a few will write there own stylesheets and force there own layout on the pages they visit. (CSS is even more democratic to (visualy) disabled people)

Web-technology has become far more complex since them, and still, everyone can create quite flashy websites (--> and still a lot of them create rubbish. Maybe it should be made harder to create webpages ;)) Idon't think you need to worry about people getting left out : if a 'non-coder' has a problem to get a page up and running, someone will write a wizzard-like tool to solve that. Even quite complex stuff like setting up a firewall, managing a database, create a database-driven application can now be done by non-coders. And it's not that hard to generate code that follows the newest standards.

And for how many other problems don't you need to call in an expert? All electronics and fancy stuff should be ripped out of cars so that everyone can do his own repairs and maintenance? Why should the web be any different? Should innovations be held back, because they could make things more complex and require some experts-assistance for non-mainstream functionalitys?

There are very good reasons for splitting the content, structure and layout of documents (as been explained to you multiple times). And if fact, it will have advantages for everyone. People or small businesses that only 'want something on the web' wil just need to pick/modify a layout (or ask someone to create one for them) and then only need to focus on there sites content. So if your concerned about 'making the web a better place' and enhancing your 'surfing-experience' or creating easy to maintain and accessible sites, then learn to code by the 'new' standards or learn to pick tools that are col-mpliant with them. (And maybe help others by writing there CSS or by writing a codegenerator or webtool so that all end-users can fully use all functionalitys. Like some other 'dictators' here do ...).
I don't know of any other medium that is so democratic and where so many people create so many free tools to allow everyone to make full use of it. And there is no reason why this will change if new standards are introduced. Quite the contrary : it will allow us to create more powerful tools and provide more possabilitys for non-coders.

allida77

07-07-2003, 03:33 PM

HTML will be around for a while, I would say 5+ years until there is any evidence of it going away. CSS became a w3c Recommendation in December 1996. About 7 years later it is still not used by some developers. I agree that as long as WYSIWYGs are around this : will always exist. It is pretty rare to find a big industry type site all hard coded in html. Dynamic content is generated by a lot of server side code. It would take a company a lot of time to go back and rewrite all components, modules ect to ouput xhtml strict while still maintaing current workloads.

sage45

07-07-2003, 07:13 PM

Put it like this:

How many of us still run into users who have or use a 15" or less monitor that is set at 640x480x16colours??? I do all the time myself...

By the same token, perhaps the procedures for the HTML standard are changing, however, HTML itself will not, IMHO, cease to exists, much like the old ISA Bus is still apart of most computer systems, it has to be included within new browsers for backwards compatibility reasons... Whether the person or persons behind deciding what to do with the standard like it or not, HTML will have a home for a long time to come... Does this mean that I feel we should not design our sites to be compatible with the newer standard, obviously no... It's not a matter of whether we should or not, but more of a matter that we have to...

In programming, and web design/implementation (although much of it is pre-scripted) is a form of programming, you will see many programming languages that, although, get upgraded or enhanced, they are still backwards compatible with their roots... Many commands that are used in common programming languages will go through some changes as the programming language itself evolves... This is because if you change the interpreter in one version to recognize or enhance an instance of a certain command set, you then take away the backwards compatibility of said command set... For example,

VBA Indeterminate Loops:

While arguments
statements
Wend (while argument is true/false, do the statements) -- Old standard and misused

Do While arguments
statements
Loop (do statements while arguments are true/false depended upon loop) -- New standard and more robust then the old standard

and the While...Wend loop is in there for backward compatibility to interpreted Basic...

So HTML as a language will never actually go away, as a standard however, it is leaving...

Side note: HTML is an upgrade of another markup language, SGML... It is still fully backwards compatible with it as well...

-sage-

Roy Sinclair

07-07-2003, 08:17 PM

Sage:

Side note: HTML is an upgrade of another markup language, SGML... It is still fully backwards compatible with it as well...

Err, no it's not. HTML was originally conceived as an implementation of SGML it was simplified to eliminate many of the more burdensome aspects of SGML and after the initial version it took on a life of it's own completely independant of it's SGML roots and the last HTML specifications violate so many of the SGML conventions that it can't be considered SGML. XML represents another simplified version of SGML and the xHTML standards which developed from the XML project represents an attempt to bring HTML back to it's roots. It's the re-imposition of SGML rules in fact which are the major differences between HTML 4.01 and xHTML 1.0 (rules like case sensitivity, properly closed tags, quoted attributes using only "...).

Interesting enough SGML is a very OLD specification http://www.sgmlsource.com/history/roots.htm.

Edit -- All that and I forgot to add my own thoughts on the life of HTML :o. I tend to agree with Sage that HTML will be around for a very long time yet. I think for a while we'll see browser supporting both HTML and xHTML pretty much the same but the advantages of xHTML will eventually cause the older HTML to be pushed into "second-class" status much like Gopher (anyone remember Gopher? Anyone still using it?).

Spookster

07-07-2003, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Roy Sinclair

(anyone remember Gopher? Anyone still using it?).

yeah he was that guy on the tv show Love Boat wasn't he? :D

sage45

07-07-2003, 09:43 PM

Thanks for the clarification Roy... :D

Now how can you mention Gopher without mentioning WAIS??? :(

Man you wanna talk about memories... WHOO HOOO... NCSA Mosiac attatching via Trumpet Winsock... Yah baby....

*wakes up* AND IT'S ALL GONE!!!!! :(

Oh well, George, I mean, Spookster, I mean Bill had to take over somewhere... :p

HEHE, long live the Wombat...

-sage-

pardicity3

07-08-2003, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
Having to know CSS and all the various hacks that seem to make it work (read the html/css forum here)along with javascript and xhtml just to get a site up and running is going to put the web in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and to me that is not a good thing.But, isn't the use of tables for layout one of the biggest hacks of all? Granted, I have come to learn CSS somewhat well, but I feel that using CSS for layouts has caused me way less headaches than trying to layout a page with tables--I still have nightmares about spacer .gif's...

About javascript: I haven't used it once since starting to use CSS and XHTML. I remember the ever-famous background color changing onmouseover table cells. Now I only need one tiny line of CSS to acheive the same effect.

In final, I remember every single person (no lie) in my web design class in high school started complaining about how hard web pages were the minute they were introduced to table based layouts. Had there been an easier way I am sure some would still be making web sites.

On to the real topic...

I think it has already been summed up pretty well by the likes of Roy, sage, oracleguy, and COBOL. Though, I feel one of the main keys to moving to XHTML lies with teachers and professors. If people keep teaching outdated HTML and table-based layouts, students will keep making pages utilizing these techniques. Had I been taught CSS layouts and proper HTML when I first learned I have a feeling my life would have been a little bit easier.

whackaxe

07-08-2003, 01:27 AM

Skyzyx

07-08-2003, 02:24 AM

As usual, I'll have to disagree with MNS.

Yes HTML 3.2, 4.01, and XHTML 1.0 are all standards. They are all valid. And that is fine with me if someone chooses to design a site in HTML 3.2. But don't half-*** it. If you're going to do it, do it right. If you don't know how to do it right, you can learn. HTML, XHTML, and CSS are not that difficult.

The problem is that HTML was not designed, nor intended to do the things we've come to expect of it. That is why W3C came up with XHTML. Because XHTML is designed for the things we expect from HTML and the Web as a whole.

Refusing to learn is your own issue. Yes, anyone can make a website. But not anyone can make a good website. It takes practice and the drive to learn to do it right.

Saying that XHTML+CSS will block people out is simply not true. I used to use tables, spacer gifs, and sub-par invalid HTML. My site only worked properly in IE5/Win. Since I discovered Web Standards (W3C Recommendations), my sites work in IE/Win, IE/Mac, Gecko, Opera, my cell phone, my Palm, PocketPC, WindowsCE, and even an old Apple Newton! How on earth can you say that XHTML+CSS will block people out?!?

One I took the time to learn how to do it right (no I'm not a programmer either) from practicing the better ways, I've gotten so much better, my websites are infinitely easier to maintain, and 100% of all internet users can access the information on my site... and that is the beauty of XHTML+CSS design!

MotherNatrsSon

07-10-2003, 09:41 PM

Sorry, but I have not had power for a few days. Thunderstorm/wind took out trees and there are still people without power.

There are very good reasons for splitting the content, structure and layout of documents (as been explained to you multiple times).

An image of a product I sell on my web site is no longer considered "content". It seems as though it it now just a barrier to accesibility. Beetle gave me a link to Zen Garden with all the css removed and there was only a white page with text. Where did the images go?

I guess I need definitions of content, structure, and layout.

As far as I am concerned, I am not making a document when I make a web site. A letter is a document. Everything I feel that is necessary to be on my web site is content. Layout is the form in which my chosen content is displayed.

I understand to a degree if you want a site for a corporation that the corporation has the MONEY to hire the experts. As a very small business person, that has many other things to do for the business besides put up a web site ie; bookkeeping, making products, advertising etc, I feel small business people that do not have the time and resources are going to be pushed out, left with no access to the web.

I hope for the sake of my friends and I that now work together keeping each others web site functioning that sage45 is correct in that HTML will be around for awhile.

I would like to know if I am "thinking" correctly... My understanding of this "validation" thing is that as long as I have a doctype at the top of my page and it validates using that doctype, it should be able to be read for a long, long time even if it is 4.01 html transitional or strict. Am I wrong?

MNS

Roy Sinclair

07-10-2003, 10:20 PM

An image of a product I sell on my web site is no longer considered "content". It seems as though it it now just a barrier to accesibility. Beetle gave me a link to Zen Garden with all the css removed and there was only a white page with text. Where did the images go?

Actually the image of a product would definitely be content and should have a nice description of the image in the alt property for the image to describe it for accessability purposes or you should have alt="" if the item is well described elsewhere.

The problem with images Beetle is trying to get across is where the images are part of the visible design of the web page, those images can add to the clutter on a page unless you're using a technique like the one for Zen Gardens where those kind of images are specified in the CSS.

I'm glad you're trying to understand the how and why of these standards even though it's obvious we haven't made a convert out of you yet. Keep on asking, sometime we'll eventually find the right words that'll help make it all "click" for you (BTW, IIRC Beetle took a lot of convincing once too :D ).

MotherNatrsSon

07-11-2003, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Roy Sinclair

The problem with images Beetle is trying to get across is where the images are part of the visible design of the web page, those images can add to the clutter on a page unless you're using a technique like the one for Zen Gardens where those kind of images are specified in the CSS.

I'm glad you're trying to understand the how and why of these standards even though it's obvious we haven't made a convert out of you yet. Keep on asking, sometime we'll eventually find the right words that'll help make it all "click" for you (BTW, IIRC Beetle took a lot of convincing once too :D ). [/B]

I guess that is the problem. I would like my web pages to be image oriented(something nice to look at) as well as have adequate text.

I am attempting to understand and have "converted" to the extent I can. My page now have a 4.01 transitional doctype(except 2 that it screws up the thumbnail script on) and I am playing with CSS to make the next "jump".

I do support the standards in that it may well be the only way to get people to realize that Microjunk and IE are "junk". A new operating system that can compete with Windoze is in order...LOL but far be it from me to be able to create one.

MNS

beetle

07-11-2003, 05:16 AM

It's cool, MNS. I don't think anybody is telling you to change "right this minute" - but rather letting you know the direction you should be heading.

About the images this - just ask yourself this question: "Is this image decoration, or is it content?" Some typical examples of "content" images

- logo
- products
- photo galleries
- personal profiles
- Smilies ;)

Some typical examples of "decoration" images

- backgrounds
- text-as-image (headers, navigation elements, etc)
- doodads (little arrows, icons, etc)
- bullets

Content images should be <img> elements in the HTML source, decoration images should be included by the appropriate CSS properties.

jkd

07-11-2003, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by beetle

Content images should be <img> elements in the HTML source

Or <object> ;).

cg9com

07-11-2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Skyzyx
Yes HTML 3.2, 4.01, and XHTML 1.0 are all standards.

blah, was it not 3.2 that introduced ?
ew :D

brothercake

07-11-2003, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by jkd
Or <object> ;).
Or <object> indeed ... do you happen to know the browser-support of images included as objects?

MotherNatrsSon

07-11-2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by beetle
It's cool, MNS. I don't think anybody is telling you to change "right this minute" - but rather letting you know the direction you should be heading.

About the images this - just ask yourself this question: "Is this image decoration, or is it content?" Some typical examples of "content" images

- logo
- products
- photo galleries
- personal profiles
- Smilies ;)

Some typical examples of "decoration" images

- backgrounds
- text-as-image (headers, navigation elements, etc)
- doodads (little arrows, icons, etc)
- bullets

Content images should be <img> elements in the HTML source, decoration images should be included by the appropriate CSS properties.

Ok. So here is the next question. bradyj has a thread going in the html/css forum where he has an image using a header tag. If it it no longer correct to use tables to layout and only for tabular data, why is it ok to use a header for an image or a for an image with css? Seems like it is the same to me. It seems like a header should be a header and not an image and a should be a paragraph and not an image. Is that a "hack" to get things to load faster or align easier? I am going to put these questions in that thread also.

MNS

beetle

07-11-2003, 05:32 PM

Read these (http://www.stopdesign.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/stop/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=image+replacement)

MotherNatrsSon

07-11-2003, 06:13 PM

Thanks beetle

MNS

jkd

07-11-2003, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by brothercake
Or <object> indeed ... do you happen to know the browser-support of images included as objects?

Not offhand. I imagine any modern browser, as well as Internet Explorer.

Skyzyx

07-13-2003, 07:27 PM

jkd

07-13-2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Skyzyx
Although I much prefer Gecko to IE, IE 5.x's "wrong" box model is more intuitive and is much more like the "box models" of things like page layout apps (QuarkXPress, InDesign, PageMaker) and graphics applications (ImageReady, Fireworks, etc.). I only found out yesterday that I misunderstood W3C's CSS Box Model when I was reading Designing with Web Standards (http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/), and that was kind of depressing...

Not necessarily. You can argue the need to explicitly set the dimensions of the content box is more important than setting the dimensions of the border-box, due to the content having any explicit size (say an image). Either way, there is a box-sizing property in CSS3 for you, which can take on "content-box" (the W3C box model) or "border-box" (the IE box model). It is supported in IE5/Mac and Opera as is, while Mozilla (correctly) prefixes it with a vendor-extension, -moz-box-sizing.

jkd

07-13-2003, 08:06 PM

And XHTML2 is not meant to be backwards compatible. That's the whole frickin point, to start fresh with a well-designed language. You'll still always have XHTML 1.x, so don't be complaining about backwards-compatibility. If XHTML2 won't be for you, stay with 1.1.

MotherNatrsSon

07-13-2003, 09:48 PM

Skyzyx

07-13-2003, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by jkd
And XHTML2 is not meant to be backwards compatible. That's the whole frickin point, to start fresh with a well-designed language. You'll still always have XHTML 1.x, so don't be complaining about backwards-compatibility. If XHTML2 won't be for you, stay with 1.1.

First of all, chill out.

Secondly, I plan to stick with XHTML 1.0-1.1 for some time. XHTML 2 is great for theory guys like you, but us application guys have backwards/forwards-compatibility to worry about.

No, I'm not thrilled about XHTML 2 being compatible with itself forward, but I understand it's point. They've going to do it right this time, so a clean slate was needed. I just think that if they were going to do that, they should give it another name, like "PerfectML" or "DoingItRightHTML". Giving an incompatible language the same name with a different version number is just poor planning.

The language itself is fine. It would be like complaining that C++ isn't compatible with HTML. The issue is that they should call it "C++" instead of something like "HTML 5.0". XHTML 2 should be given a different name as to not confuse so many people.

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
So if you use xhtml2 anyone with an older browser is automatically unable to view your site? So much for accessibility. I wonder if it will be 20 years or so before anyone bothers with xhtml2 because of no backwards compatability? Why bother coding to that standard if only a small percentage of people will be able to access your site?

Yes, it's true that older browsers that are not capable of understanding newer/better instruction sets are left out. XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 will continue to work fine in all browsers. But XHTML 2 being a similar-but-different SGML-based language uses <object> tags (for example) which is the right way to do it (according to every X/HTML spec since HTML began), but it leaves tags like <img> out, because they decided to do it the way it was supposed to be, instead of patronizing people's common misuses of the language.

Unfortunately, that leaves some of our customers out, but includes "theory" guys with XHTML 2 compatible browsers. All you have to do is use a current browser.

jkd

07-13-2003, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Skyzyx
They've going to do it right this time, so a clean slate was needed. I just think that if they were going to do that, they should give it another name, like "PerfectML" or "DoingItRightHTML". Giving an incompatible language the same name with a different version number is just poor planning.

I don't see the difference between doing that and say, MacOS 9 vs MacOS X, or Windows ME vs Windows XP. You can argue that XHTML is a language and those are OS's, but the point still stands that popular things are completely rewritten from time to time, while keeping the same name, and backwards compatibility is an afterthought, if a thought at all (I can't run some of my favorite DOS games in XP, and I'd say MacOSX isn't very backwards compatible, since you need to launch Classic just to run the old programs).

Besides, with the even cleaner document structure of XHTML 2, applying an XSLT sheet to transform it into legacy HTML or even XHTML 1.1 is easier than ever.

oracleguy

07-14-2003, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
So if you use xhtml2 anyone with an older browser is automatically unable to view your site? So much for accessibility. I wonder if it will be 20 years or so before anyone bothers with xhtml2 because of no backwards compatability? Why bother coding to that standard if only a small percentage of people will be able to access your site?

MNS

I wouldn't say it is a small percentage, its not like they are going to come out with standard and make sure it works in IE2. There isn't a reason for anyone to be using anything below IE4 and the comperable Netscape equivlent. And thats being generous, in my opinion there is no excuse for using anything less than IE5.5 (and the comperable equivlents of course). Besides I think we've got at least a year or two before xhtml2 compliant websites become more common. I don't think they have even "released" it yet, have they?

There have been hundreds of times throughout the computer industry when things have been introduced that have no more backwards compatibility. Hell, we are approching another one of those times right now with the phasing out of AGP and PCI slots and the introduction of the x16 Slot and PCI Express. People have survived it before and they will continue to do so. Backwards compatiblity is nice but it is a luxury nonetheless.

MotherNatrsSon

07-14-2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by oracleguy
There isn't a reason for anyone to be using anything below IE4 and the comperable Netscape equivlent. And thats being generous, in my opinion there is no excuse for using anything less than IE5.5 (and the comperable equivlents of course).

Some people do use IE 3 and 4 to access my site according to stats. A good reason might be $$$$$. Some people just do not have the bucks to upgrade hardware and software every time the "new" stuff comes out.

I do understand the explinations you gave as far as it not being backwards compatible.

MNS

oracleguy

07-14-2003, 12:38 AM

That is true. But even with IE 3 say, it might not be able to understand that the object tag is supposed to display an image with xhtml2 but it will certainly still display the text and people could still read the page.

brothercake

07-14-2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by jkd
Besides, with the even cleaner document structure of XHTML 2, applying an XSLT sheet to transform it into legacy HTML or even XHTML 1.1 is easier than ever.
Exactly - it doesn't matter either way, because output is arbitrary - what matters is the data.

An XML-driven backend can deliver XHTML 2 to the latest browsers, XHTML 1 to older browsers ... WML to mobile phones, RSS(!) to newsreaders ... whatever you want - adding support for devices is as easy as writing a new stylesheet :thumbsup:

Drakain Zeil

08-07-2003, 12:55 AM

How much longer do you all think HTML will last
IMO it will not last much longer. The glory years of Hyper Text is dieing and 4.0 was the intervenus that developers put in it to give it a few more years.

XML seems to be slowly taking over, and personaly I don't have many problems with that, except unfamilararity and other developers not notice the "must close all tags rule."

val

09-01-2003, 09:39 AM

I don't think anybody is telling you to change "right this minute" - but rather letting you know the direction you should be heading.

Thank you all for such a good and in depth topic :) :thumbsup: