3 ms·
HTML and the menagerie of related standards has never, as far as I'm aware, become simpler. And the old versions have never been removed from a browser.
by ori_b 7y ago
HTML and the menagerie of related standards has never, as far as I'm aware, become simpler. And the old versions have never been removed from a browser.
- dredmorbius 7y agoXHTML was a step too far. It was rejected in favour of HTML4 & 5, ultimately.
- ori_b 7y agoxhtml seems to me quite a bit simpler to implement than HTML5.
- dredmorbius 7y agoXHTML is hard-structured, and among its negatives, requires being fully downloaded to be parsed and validated. HTML, including H5, has soft-fail modes. At least that's the justification I generally see. See the Criticism section of the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML#Criticism
- ori_b 7y agoThat makes HTML5 harder to implement, not simpler.
- dredmorbius 7y agoHTML5 != XHTML. (If that's what you're saying.) HTML5 breaks soft. It's easier to write, which is what drives content. A parser for which there is no content becomes moot. (I'd prefer far more rigorous document specification. That's not the Universe I inhabit.)
- ori_b 7y agoYou're responding to a thread pointing out that browsers are too complicated to implement, which has forced everyone but Google and Mozilla to give up on providing browsers and web standards. And Google is currently the funding source for Mozilla, giving them a more or less complete monopoly on the future of the web.