Topic: XHTML 2 vs. HTML 5

Has anybody been keeping up on this? What are your thoughts... which direction do you like better?

At least XHTML 2 was being authored by the W3C.

Well from that article, I would say that XHTML 2 looks much more beneficial to the developer than HTML 5, although I'm not so sure I'm a fan of the unnumbered headings. Learning how to use headers isn't hard, but it takes some thought and time. Once you get it it's easy to implement.

Reworking the Headers just seems unnecessary, and I don't like the way they've implemented the workaround.

Well, XHTML 2 is kinda dead, and it's not backward compatible so ... It won't get broadly implemented until 2029.

HTML5 is backward compatible and modular to ease the implementation. Also the spec goes into great details on how to parse the markup, fail and the conditions of failure for every thing, ... it's much better than anything else I have seen from the W3C.


Also, in a nutshell HTML5 is targetted at the real world while XHTML 2 comes from Utopia, and might stay there for a little while.


reisio: HTML5 is authored by both the WTF and the W3C. But the important thing is that it is endorsed by the W3C.

quote:

---

At least XHTML 2 was being authored by the W3C.

---

Your point being? (And as poi said, work on HTML 5 happens at both W3C and WHATWG.)

Other than that, I pretty much agree with what poi said. There are some nice stuff in XHTML 2, but from what I've heard, no vendor is interested in implementing it. And why should they? Breaking backwards compatibility is just brain dead.

HTML 5 all the way if you ask me.

quote:

---

HTML5 is authored by both the WTF and the W3C.

---

WTF? WTF! Forgot your pills poi?

quote:

---

XHTML 2 comes from Utopia, and might stay there for a little while.

---

Something like : xhtml is supposedly a subset of xml, so sort of an hybrid between SGML (encompassing HTML)
and XML (encompassing many useful subsets like rss for news).

Problem of this : if you and I were to write TRUELY valid xhtml - strictly compliant to both his "originating standards",
it would be a HUGE pain in the ass.

The "Utopia" mentioned by poi is "Semantic web" : a web where machines can read pages as well as humans do, more or less.
I am a believer, but this utopia has been around for years and has not reached significant milestones yet :
my new designs of www.beyondwonderland.com and www.mauro-colella.com aim to take this in account
at a "core" level - the structure would allow each individual resource to be described using rss.

But in real world, the future, and a web prone to quirks in it's very nature, is about HTML 5, HTML 5, and then..
HTML 5.

And ROFLMAO at poi's new web standard institution : the WTF!!! (laughing so hard I am crying).

(Edited by argo navis on 02-23-2008 01:48)

People, WTF stands for WHAT ( Web Hypertext Application Technology ) Task Force. That's a cool accronym but later they changed it to WHAT WG ( Working Group ) for some obscure reasons

To be honest, the first times I heard about XHTML2, I was excited about the semantic and "purity" of the markup compared to HTML. But then I faced reality and realized it would never fly. Not being backward compatible is an absolute no-no.

Hahahahah... OOh, the tears of joy.

HTML 5 is engineered by the WTF!! No suprise then, that all browsers suck.

quote:

---

poi said:

To be honest, the first times I heard about XHTML2, I was excited about the semantic and "purity" of the markup compared to HTML. But then I faced reality and realized it would never fly.

---

Exactly my feelings.

quote:

---

People, WTF stands for WHAT ( Web Hypertext Application Technology ) Task Force. That's a cool accronym but later they changed it to WHAT WG ( Working Group ) for some obscure reasons

---

As far as I recall, WHATWG has always been the name. Some time later, WHATTF was created, but as far as I know, this was mostly as a kind of joke. The acronym was always WHATTF though. Not that it really matters.

As long as it's not engineered by the NWL.

quote:

---

poi said:

HTML5 is authored by both the WTF and the W3C. But the important thing is that it is endorsed by the W3C.

---

Mmm, but it was initially rejected by the W3C - they just wore them down is all.

Resio: It's wasn't rejected by W3C so much as never up for discussion because the W3C was hellbent on a pure XML successor for XHTML. When TBL saw that XTML2 was a no-fly with browser vendors and that the WHAT WG was likely to take over the HTML technology unless HTML was again folded into the W3C portfolio, he decided to reopen the HTML activity - more to keep control over the language within the W3C than because it was a path he wanted to follow from the sounds of it. The adoption of WHAT WG spec Web Applications 1.0 as the base for a W3C HTML 5 spec was something that came after that from a WG decision.

--
var Liorean = {
abode: "http://codingforums.com/",
profile: "http://codingforums.com/member.php?u=5798"};

Sounds like the same thing to me.

It's the difference between having a question up for discussion but rejecting it and never having it up for discussion at all because it's not on anybody's list of priorities.

--
var Liorean = {
abode: "http://web-graphics.com/",
profile: "http://codingforums.com/member.php?u=5798"};