3 ms·

Me personally, I didn't even care that much about strict semantic web, but XML has the benefits of the entire ecosystem around it (like XPath and XSLT), composa

Me personally, I didn't even care that much about strict semantic web, but XML has the benefits of the entire ecosystem around it (like XPath and XSLT), composable extensibility in form of namespaces etc. It was very frustrating to see all that thrown out with HTML5, and the reasoning never made any sense to me (backwards compatibility with pre-XHTML pages would be best handled by defining a spec according to which they should be converted to XHTML).

immibis 2y ago
If XHTML was literally just HTML but with XML syntax, it would be pretty cool.
- jraph 2y ago
  isn't it what XHTML5 is, more or less?
- bazoom42 2y ago
  It is.
  - immibis 2y ago
    XHTML 1.0 was, and they evolved it incompatibly.
    - bazoom42 2y ago
      There was an ill-advised XHtml 2.0 project which was supposed to be incompatible, but it was abandoned. Currently xhtml is defined as an alternative “serialization” of html, but the semantics are exactly the same as html.
- int_19h 2y ago
  That's exactly what it was, though - HTML 4.01 Strict but with XML syntax.