> I never understood why the more strict rules of XML for HTML never took off. Because of the vast quantity of legacy HTML content, largely. > HTML 5 was an o

> I never understood why the more strict rules of XML for HTML never took off. Because of the vast quantity of legacy HTML content, largely. > HTML 5 was an opportunity to make a clear cut between legacy HTML and the future of HTML. WHATWG and its living standard that W3C took various versions of and made changes to and called it HTML 5, 5.1, etc., to pretend that they were still relevant in HTML, before finally giving up on that entirely, was a direct result of the failure of XHTML and the idea of a clear cut between legacy HTML and the future of HTML. It was a direct reaction against the “clear cut” approach based on experience, not an opportunity to repeat its mistakes. (Instead of a clear break, HTML incorporated the “more strict rules of XML” via the XML serialization for HTML; for the applications where that approach offers value, it is available and supported and has an object model 100% compatible with the more common form, and they are maintained together rather than competing.)