4 ms·
XHTML2. You just need XML parser for that.
by whereistimbo 6y ago
XHTML2. You just need XML parser for that.
- frenchy 6y agoThat's vastily oversimplifying things. XHTML2 was a markedly superior language to HTML in a few ways, but you still would have needed to have the same CSS & JS components to interact with an XHTML page.
- wegs 6y agoWell, no. As much as I liked SGML back in the days for human-readability, having an SGML/XML/etc. parser is not the problem. The problem is understanding what the document is. Today, much of the web consists of an empty DIV, populated with JavaScript from JSON objects. I can't do anything with that. One step down, I have a structured, semantic document, but the semantics are defined as `class` elements. I can do more with that, but not a lot. With HTML2.0, I couldn't keep much on the web, but it was semantic. I knew what body text was, what a header was, etc. Semantics are defined in the DTD, which is super-nice. HTML5 points a path forward, with elements like `article` and what-not, but it's still got a ways to go before I can understand the content of a page in the way I could with HTML2.0. There's a deep anti-pattern in there, wrapping things in wrappers, but that's a longer story.