3 ms·
XHTML was not that bad. It was quite conservative - make serialization/deserialization idempotent, remove document.write, quirks mode, DOM Level 0 accessors. T
by sergeykish 6y ago
XHTML was not that bad. It was quite conservative - make serialization/deserialization idempotent, remove document.write, quirks mode, DOM Level 0 accessors.
The stupid part was advertising of writing XML by hand - both XHTML and XSLT. That is machine format - "application" in "application/xml". Not more sense than writing JS AST. And semantic web has no advantage for author.
XHTML 2.0 - XML Events is like IE <script for>, <img>alt</img> is good, <h> is good, removal of <i>, <b> - no one would see, XForms - partly adopted, and RDF - don't know.
Though it kind of understandable - XML was in rage. Everyone pushed it, Microsoft above all, IE5 accepted "text/xml" [1]. And Microsoft pushed XSLT without XSL-FO.
[1] https://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/03/ie5/first-x.html https://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/03/ie5/first-x.html