No Point to XHTML? — OZONE Asylum, home of the Mad Scientists

Stupid Basic HTML

No Point to XHTML?

This page's ID: 9587

Edit Post

Who can edit a post?	The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.

Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:	Remember Me On This Computer

Your Text: Insert Slimies » Insert UBB Code » Close Last Tag \| All Tags UBB Help	I found that most of Mark's bitching had to do a lot with him not being able to code appropriately. There are freely available code validators so that you can make sure your markup is clean. You are not suposed to mis a single closing tag. HTML and XHTML are not suposed to allow you to do things wrong. The vendors are the ones who allowed you to break things not the code. It was a blessing that it allowed a lot of people in the door, but we are moving towards a far more structured enviornment where it is not just "human" me mingling in the web, but it is web robots of all kinds, crawling searching storing, repeating, even displaying. We have openned the flood gates and now we have to slowlying bring them back into a fully manageable enviornment. There is no doubt in my mind that we need to continue forward in the advancement of the markup, we can not stay static, and at the same time the code base for the UA's are not and should not have to handle all of the complexities of 10's or 100's of DTD's internally, allong with their rendering. The code bloat there is just enormous. There is no reason for a browser to need to be 10 or 20 mb's in order to show you a webpage. The extra features are where the code should be put. I know that I do not want, with the current standards of the web, to be put in the position to develope a browser to work with the different code bases out there. I must also say that when I looked at the XHTML 2.0 specifications I was really, really impressed. It was like I got a new candy jar to play with. The address tags, and add and delete tags, finally moving over to an object model, and deprecating the br tag. It made my mouth water. There were some amazing ideas in there, with some awsome posabilities. Just the edit tag made me really happy. Those are the anti-1984 tags, you can change your content, but still perserve your old content, for those who would like to see it. It is like a built in versioning system. I could go on and on about the object model, the recent ALA article on PNG would be obsolete as you could design your images to degrade to a useful version, all the way down to a textual display, which was really top notch, a win for accessability all the way around. I could go on and on about the bonus to accessability in the XHTML2 documentation. I can also see where many would not be happy with XHTML2 If you don't like change and do not want to adapt or look at new things, you will definately not like this. As XHTML2 is now, if the masses were to accept it, it would need a middle ground. A bridge between XHTML1.1 and XHTML2 would be needed. Back to the rants. Do not bring it down on the standards, which tend to be well written, but poorly maintained. It is really a hard nut to crack. SInce everything is seperate but trying in some form or another working togeather. Microsoft does not help, by funding and contributing the W3, and then not following the standards and creating competing standards. There are a whole lot of issues, and many are with browser support, and the rendering engines. That is why I don't want to be a part of developing a browser, the weight of the web is on their shoulders. [url=http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Stu/dcurran] [img]http://www.sinc.stonybrook.edu/Stu/dcurran/siggy_004.gif[/img] [/url] Loading...
Options:	Enable Slimies Enable Linkwords

« Backwards — Onwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu