4 ms·
On XHTML, I think there was room for both HTML and a proper XHTML that barks on errors. If you're a human typing HTML or using a language where you build your H
by donatj 1y ago
On XHTML, I think there was room for both HTML and a proper XHTML that barks on errors. If you're a human typing HTML or using a language where you build your HTML by concatenation like early PHP, sure it makes sense to allow loosey goosey HTML but if you're using any sort of simple DOM builder which should preclude you from the possibility of outputting invalid HTML, strict XHTML makes a lot more sense.
Honestly I'm disappointed the promised XHTML5 never materialized along side HTML5. I guess it just lost steam.
- detaro 1y agoBut a HTML5 parser will obviously parse "strict" HTML5 just fine too, what value is there to special-case the "this was generated by a DOM builder" path client-side?
- chrismorgan 1y ago> Honestly I'm disappointed the promised XHTML5 never materialized along side HTML5. I guess it just lost steam. The HTML Standard supports two syntaxes, HTML and XML. All browsers support XML syntax just fine—always have, and probably always will. Serve your file as application/xhtml+xml, and go ham.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ttepasse 1y agoThere was even a polyglot (X)HTML 5 which I always found genius - there are many more XML parsers than HTML5 parsers in the world. https://www.w3.org/TR/html-polyglot/ https://www.w3.org/TR/html-polyglot/