4 ms·
I missed the memo. Can anyone point me to an article explaining exactly why XHTML has suddenly become the whipping boy du jour? I'm well aware that HTML5 is the
by matrix 17y ago
I missed the memo. Can anyone point me to an article explaining exactly why XHTML has suddenly become the whipping boy du jour? I'm well aware that HTML5 is the next hot thing and all, but I don't understand why anyone would favor HTML4?
- ubernostrum 17y agoI wrote up some thoughts a while back: http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2008/jun/18/html/ http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2008/jun/18/html/
- ZeroGravitas 17y agohttp://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml "A number of problems resulting from the use of the text/html MIME type in conjunction with XHTML content are discussed. It is suggested that XHTML delivered as text/html is broken and XHTML delivered as text/xml is risky, so authors intending their work for public consumption should stick to HTML 4.01, and authors who wish to use XHTML should deliver their markup as application/xhtml+xml." Note the date (Sep 2002) and the fact that the author is now in charge of the HTML5 spec. Some people argue that forcing web developers to follow rigid XML rules, plus an appendix full of hints on how to mangle your XML so that actual browsers wouldn't choke on it (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/guidelines.html http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/guidelines.html) somehow got people in the right mindset to do semantic, accessible HTML. The prevailing view is that this was mostly cargo cult behaviour and neither those following or recommending this course of action really understood the supposed benefits or drawbacks.
- rimantas 17y agoAnd some more: http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200501/the_perils_of_using_xhtml_properly/ http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200501/the_perils_of_u... http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/12/xhtml-beginners http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/12/xhtml-beginners