[marcamos]

Quote

I'm a little bit lost in this HTML/XHTML thing. I suppose I'm not alone on
this.

I really don't see why we are releasing a new version of HTML. Wasn't
XHTML supposed to be the next evolution of HTML? What are the basic
differences between the two?

I think XHMTL2 and HTML5 should agree on most things that would be
identical for each one.
That way we may even have less problems with browser developers in the
future.


Cheers,
Dustin Johnson

in response...

Quote

dustinjohnson@stock-market-investors.com wrote:
> I really don't see why we are releasing a new version of HTML. Wasn't
> XHTML supposed to be the next evolution of HTML?

HTML and XHTML will continue to co-exist in practice, it is not
realistic to believe that XHTML could ever completely replace HTML in
the future. It is therefore important to continue to strive for
interoperabilty between browsers in the way that they parse and render
pages regardless of whether they are written in HTML or XHTML.

Also note that HTML and XHTML are optimised for different needs and
situations, and authors should try to make informed decisions about the
use of each.

> What are the basic differences between the two?

http://wiki.whatwg.o.../HTML_vs._XHTML

> I think XHMTL2 and HTML5 should agree on most things that would be
> identical for each one. That way we may even have less problems with
> browser developers in the future.

XHTML 2 can and should be ignored by most web developers. It is
extremely unlikely to succeed on the public web and it should be noted
that major browser vendors currently have no interest supporting XHTML 2.

HTML5 and XHTML2 also have different design principles, and so they are
incompatible by design. It is therefore not necessary to try to make
them identical. However, HTML5 does include many features that are
present in XHTML2, although some of them are designed differently.

--
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/

Via the WHATWG mailing list: http://lists.whatwg....help-whatwg.org

[haku]

Not using (or even knowing how to use) HTML 4.0, I don't know what the reasons would be to want to use it, seeing as I've been able to do everything I've ever needed with xhtml. What are some situations where HTML 4.0 would be better than XHTML 1.0?

[marcamos]

haku, on Nov 25 2007, 08:16 PM, said:

What are some situations where HTML 4.0 would be better than XHTML 1.0?

None really - XHTML doesn't introduce any new elements or features that were absent in HTML, it simply changes the markup itself. For example, every element needs to be closed, they all need to be properly nested, etc. For a more official description on the differences, here they are straight from the horse's mouth.

HTML5 however (or it's rival XHTML2) aims to add a lot more never-before-seen elements to our lives with the ultimate goal of filling in gaps that were missing for years, correcting habits that time has formed, etc.

[haku]

Im interested in seeing them then! This thread is the first I have heard of them. Any personal opinions on them so far?

[marcamos]

From what I've studied so far on the subject, XHTML2 proposes a much more risky approach to advancing the markup language we're all so used to. HTML5 is much less risky, but can be seen as much less forward-moving (I suppose less risk = less change).

Most browser vendors are already showing their support for HTML5, due to its backwards-compatibility, and as of the last time I studied the subject, little-to-no browser vendors are supporting XHTML2.

This is one of my favorite, if slightly old, articles on the debate: http://xhtml.com/en/...versus-xhtml-2/

[supasnail]

Rather than ask why you should use html - you perhaps should be asking why use xhtml. Xhtml when rendered in a web browser is parsed as html anyway - so there's no real benefit to employing it in a standard web page. However, xhtml can be parsed by an xml parser, so if you are developing or linking to an XML web application then there is good reason to use it, or if you are providing information which might be beneficial to an xml application in the future, then again there might be good reason to use xhtml. Many websites that have been created with xhtml should really have been coded with html, but when xhtml was introduced it was wrongly assumed by many designers that this was the replacement for HTML, and that was simply not the case.
I tend to code basic sites (portfolio sites, or 'Billiy's Kitchens-type brochure sites) in HTML 4.01, Blog sites or community sites or similar I tend to use xhtml 1.0 to allow greater connectivity to other online applications. Email Newsletters of course should not only be written in html4.01, but also be laid out using dreaded tables with inline styling - to ensure maximum compatibility with the myriad of poorly-rendering email clients.

[Catalyst]

Good article on what's coming in the new 5's. XHTML vs HTML.

From A List Apart: http://www.alistapar.../previewofhtml5