|
|
Posted by Chaddy2222 on 04/21/07 08:46
On Apr 21, 4:37 pm, Neo Geshel <got...@geshel.org> wrote:
> Sherm Pendley wrote:
> > Neo Geshel <got...@geshel.org> writes:
>
> >> HTML is a dead end. It is no longer being extended or enhanced; there
> >> will never be an HTML 5.0. Wikipedia: "HTML 4.01 and ISO/IEC
> >> 15445:2000 are the most recent and final versions of HTML."
> >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html)
>
> > Wikipedia doesn't define HTML; the W3C does that. OK, technically the
> > W3C issues proposals, and it's up to the IETF to ISO approve (or not)
> > them as standards, but in practice most everyone treats the latest W3C
> > proposal as a de facto standard.
>
> > The W3C has more or less openly admitted that XHTML is too ambitious
> > and poorly supported, and they've chartered a new HTML working group
> > a little over a month ago:
>
> > <http://www.w3.org/html/>
>
> > The group's charter states that both "classic" and XML syntax will be
> > supported. That statement, and the formation of the working group in the
> > first place, is a clear admission that browser support for XHTML is not
> > as far along as the W3C had hoped it would be by now.
>
> That is news to me. I have had my mind on other things for the last
> little while, so I haven't been keeping up on the W3C's actions as I
> usually do.
>
> However, it appears all due to Microsoft's IE web browser, and their
> inability to update it to the latest web standards:http://www.w3.org/2007/03/html-pressrelease
> Essentially they are saying, because IE is so forgiving of mistakes, and
> can't handle the newer standards, HTML has to be given some extra life
> support until IE catches up to Firefox/Opera.
>
> Thank goodness IE is loosing ground - some large web sites are showing
> IE usage at less than 70%.
>
> >> The future is all about XHTML
>
> > Probably, but the browsers people are using right now have non-trivial
> > problems with it.
>
> > sherm--
>
> Make that browser, singular. As in, Internet Explorer. Firefox and Opera
> both have wonderful support for XHTML, and many cell phones and
> handhelds make use of Opera's mobile version. If IE usage keeps
> accelerating downwards as it has been for the last year, it should
> become another Netscape within the next 2-3 years. As in, not worth the
> bother.
>
This is not really true, IE still have a share of around 80 / 90% of
the browser market and a lot of people use IE7 which does not support
XHTML served as aplicationXHTML+XML, so unless you use a lot of hacks
you can't use it. CSS hacks have nothing to do with this argument as
they are not hard to get working and also IE's support for CSS as a
web standard is getting a lot better the PNG issue is a good example
of this.
A part from it being a little pointless in some insences, there is
nothing wrong with serving XHTML as text/html and the W3C recomend
this as a part of apendix C of the XHTML 1.0 recomendations.
They do not suggest useing XHTML 1.1 at all.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|