Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 39
  1. #1
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    34° 54' N 82° 13' W
    Posts
    996
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    The Future of HTML

    How much longer do you all think HTML will last?

    Thanks
    Stevie Peele
    Neverside IRC Network - irc.veonex.net | tc.tutorialnetwork.org
    #dev - any programming,etc. question
    #design - design discussion and critque
    #central - general chat
    Come join us!

  • #2
    Regular Coder COBOLdinosaur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    396
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 30 Times in 30 Posts
    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&
    100% standards compliant code is 100% correct 100% of the time.
    one of my toys from my repository and perhaps some help getting help

    Cd&

  • #3
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    1,438
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    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

  • #4
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    near Oswestry
    Posts
    4,508
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    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 <font>, is already years out of date; browsers should continue to support it, but nobody should still be making it, imho.
    Last edited by brothercake; 07-06-2003 at 07:59 PM.
    "Why bother with accessibility? ... Because deep down you know that the web is attractive to people who aren't exactly like you." - Joe Clark

  • #5
    Rockstar Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,074
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 328 Times in 324 Posts
    Originally posted by brothercake
    Presentational HTML, as in tables for layout, spacing gifs, and visual markup like <font>, 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.
    OracleGuy

  • #6
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    1,438
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    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

  • #7
    Super Moderator sage45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,059
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
    This is a more appropriate topic for the Technology discussion forum... Moving this to the Technology discussion forum...

    -sage-
    HTML & CSS Forum Moderator

    "If you don't know what you think you know, then what do you know."
    R.I.P. Derrick Thomas #58
    1/1/1967 - 2/8/2000

  • #8
    raf
    raf is offline
    Master Coder
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,589
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    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.

  • #9
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    545
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    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 : <font size=4></font> 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.

  • #10
    Super Moderator sage45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,059
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
    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-
    HTML & CSS Forum Moderator

    "If you don't know what you think you know, then what do you know."
    R.I.P. Derrick Thomas #58
    1/1/1967 - 2/8/2000

  • #11
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Wichita
    Posts
    3,880
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    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 . 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?).
    Last edited by Roy Sinclair; 07-07-2003 at 07:26 PM.
    Check out the Forum Search. It's the short path to getting great results from this forum.

  • #12
    Supreme Overlord Spookster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Marion, IA USA
    Posts
    6,278
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 83 Times in 82 Posts
    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?
    Spookster
    CodingForums Supreme Overlord
    All Hail Spookster

  • #13
    Super Moderator sage45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,059
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
    Thanks for the clarification Roy...

    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...

    HEHE, long live the Wombat...

    -sage-
    HTML & CSS Forum Moderator

    "If you don't know what you think you know, then what do you know."
    R.I.P. Derrick Thomas #58
    1/1/1967 - 2/8/2000

  • #14
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Iowa / Notre Dame
    Posts
    538
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    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.
    My Site {Mike's Adventures}

    Yikes, forums are almost too much fun.

  • #15
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    paris, france
    Posts
    1,216
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    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.
    to quote quite far back, i think that if its jsut to see loads of useless homesites that people dont care about, whers the loss? and if theyre are that desperate to get a site up and running, they can use a WYSIWYG editer
    photoshop too expensive? use the GIMP! www.gimp.org


  •  
    Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •