3 ms·

XHTML2 was largely fantastic, imo, and would have been an excellent successor to html. If it had been what started out the XHTML process I think it would have b

XHTML2 was largely fantastic, imo, and would have been an excellent successor to html. If it had been what started out the XHTML process I think it would have been more successful, but XHTML1 was such a foot-in-both-worlds mess that it needed to be put out of its misery.

iSnow 13y ago
Actually hardly anyone wanted XHTML2, because it was a purely academic excercise in making established things harder (<a href="..." target="_blank") without compelling features. I tried to use it but then completely reverted to HTML4. Thank god we have HTML5 now.
- bct 13y ago
  > making established things harder (<a href="..." target="_blank") What are you referring to? That example would have worked identically.
  - Zarel 13y ago
    It's invalid in XHTML2, as well as XHTML 1 Strict.
    - bct 13y ago
      You mean the target attribute? It wasn't in XHTML 1 Strict or 1.1, but you're wrong about XHTML 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-hyperAttributes.html#adef_hyperAttributes_target http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-hyperAttributes.html#adef_hy...
bzbarsky 13y ago
The big problem with XHTML2 was that it was designed by people who hated HTML. So they went and made it purposefully incompatible with HTML and XHTML1 in various ways (e.g. tags with the same localName and in the same namespace were supposed to have different behavior). That made it impossible for a browser to implement both XHTML2 and XHTML1 at once (which was in fact the goal of some of the committee members). And then browsers were faced with the choice of implementing XHTML2 (no content at all out there) or XHTML1+HTML (lots of content out there) but not both, they picked the one you'd expect them to pick...