Why hasn't XHTML replaced HTML 5?
-
>Also, I think proper HTML5 *is* XML < nope, there is a xhtml v5 too. w3c xhtml FAQGo figure? :confused:
"It's true that hard work never killed anyone. But I figure, why take the chance." - Ronald Reagan That's what machines are for. Got a problem? Sleep on it.
Yes, there is an xhtml v5, but that was abandoned in favor the HTML5. And what I said is correct, proper HTML5 *is* proper XML. But, it's may not be required to be proper XML.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein -
Yes, there is an xhtml v5, but that was abandoned in favor the HTML5. And what I said is correct, proper HTML5 *is* proper XML. But, it's may not be required to be proper XML.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einsteinok. understood. I've just started going through the candidate recommendation of HTML 5, to see what features of xml will or won't work as expected. :)
"It's true that hard work never killed anyone. But I figure, why take the chance." - Ronald Reagan That's what machines are for. Got a problem? Sleep on it.
-
Processing instructions and <?myApp Options="blah" Target="foo" Debug="on" ?> Those PI tags are ignored rather than having to wrap them in <!-- comment tags --> Parsed and unparsed external DTDs, internal DTD will override the external one which gives inheritance type overrides. Entities can also be categorised and stored as separate external files. When did you ever see a validator for HTML? Ok it's no guarantee the document is well formed, but it's helpful to know that it conforms to your custom DTD as far as tags are concerned.
"It's true that hard work never killed anyone. But I figure, why take the chance." - Ronald Reagan That's what machines are for. Got a problem? Sleep on it.
-
I don't really see anything in your list that I'd want to have. Except maybe a validator - but there are a ton of HTML validators.
Well that boils down to the requirements and ambitions of the implementor. ;) I'm not interested in web development per se. Just document management with some meta-programming ideas I've got. But I hoped that using xhtml would remove one layer of the source document. So far, having browsed the html5/xhtml spec today. I'm not convinced it makes life easier than just using plain old xml + script-language XML-DOM parsing.
"It's true that hard work never killed anyone. But I figure, why take the chance." - Ronald Reagan That's what machines are for. Got a problem? Sleep on it.
-
Well that boils down to the requirements and ambitions of the implementor. ;) I'm not interested in web development per se. Just document management with some meta-programming ideas I've got. But I hoped that using xhtml would remove one layer of the source document. So far, having browsed the html5/xhtml spec today. I'm not convinced it makes life easier than just using plain old xml + script-language XML-DOM parsing.
"It's true that hard work never killed anyone. But I figure, why take the chance." - Ronald Reagan That's what machines are for. Got a problem? Sleep on it.
-
Then you're right, HTML5 won't do much (if anything) for you. It was never meant to solve that problem, so it doesn't.
Except for the fact that any (HTML 5 conformant) web browser supporting the <canvas> tag can be used for delivering almost any type of info. Like transforming text-based information into graphics. So there is a downside. Re-implementing the endpoint.
"It's true that hard work never killed anyone. But I figure, why take the chance." - Ronald Reagan That's what machines are for. Got a problem? Sleep on it.
-
With all the advantages of xml, why hasn't xhtml taken over? XML has been around for over 15 years now, and xhtml for about 10 of those years. So where's the problem, what the hell went wrong?
"It's true that hard work never killed anyone. But I figure, why take the chance." - Ronald Reagan That's what machines are for. Got a problem? Sleep on it.
XHTML already had its own problems, like target="_blank" being invalid in strict mode and other annoyances. Developers found it to be very counterproductive to deal with, especially since they were accustomed to much looser rules. XHTML2 was going to take this to another level, and while this was good in theory, in practice people hated it. So they just scrapped to whole thing. And I do mean that literally, continuing from where HTML4 has left off. I do think HTML5 should've enforced strict XML format, which is not the case, especially with optional tags. It actually pains me to see that this is a totally valid HTML5 markup fragment:
-
First
-
Second
-
-
With all the advantages of xml, why hasn't xhtml taken over? XML has been around for over 15 years now, and xhtml for about 10 of those years. So where's the problem, what the hell went wrong?
"It's true that hard work never killed anyone. But I figure, why take the chance." - Ronald Reagan That's what machines are for. Got a problem? Sleep on it.
-
Just where is XML used these days doe anything but ini file type stuff? And it isnt even as if XML is better than the old ini files, at least you could read them. IMO XML is a joke.
============================== Nothing to say.
Like you say .ini files are for application configuration/setup in Microsoft products. But nothing to do with managing documents. Try looking at SGML, then maybe you'll get an idea of the area I'm focusing on.
"It's true that hard work never killed anyone. But I figure, why take the chance." - Ronald Reagan That's what machines are for. Got a problem? Sleep on it.
-
XHTML already had its own problems, like target="_blank" being invalid in strict mode and other annoyances. Developers found it to be very counterproductive to deal with, especially since they were accustomed to much looser rules. XHTML2 was going to take this to another level, and while this was good in theory, in practice people hated it. So they just scrapped to whole thing. And I do mean that literally, continuing from where HTML4 has left off. I do think HTML5 should've enforced strict XML format, which is not the case, especially with optional tags. It actually pains me to see that this is a totally valid HTML5 markup fragment:
-
First
-
Second
I've been away from the whole xml and xhtml stuff for a long time. So yesterday, I went through the xpath and xslt introductory courses on w3c schools. Using xslt you can transform xml directly to xhtml (with filtering and formatting applied). Those are quite useful. I'm not so bothered about xhtml, but at least now I know that I can avoid creating xhtml documents directly makes managing xml only documents much simpler. ;)
"It's true that hard work never killed anyone. But I figure, why take the chance." - Ronald Reagan That's what machines are for. Got a problem? Sleep on it.
-