|
|
Posted by Toby A Inkster on 12/03/07 11:07
Robert Jones wrote:
> Which should I focus on keeping track of?
Both. Neither.
W3C XHTML 2.0 is not going to result in a new version of HTML suitable for
consumption on the WWW in the very near future. It may be useful for
internal use as an authoring format, and translated into another variety
of markup for browsers using XSLT.
WHATWG HTML 5 is more likely to bear fruit in the short term -- some
aspects like <video> and <canvas> are already starting to pop up in
experimental and even official builds of certain browsers.
Then there's a third effort: W3C HTML 5, which is basically the W3C's
admission that XHTML 2.0 is too bizzare to ever become an effective
successor to current versions of (X)HTML. Their draft specification is
currently identical to WHATWG HTML 5, but may start to diverge.
I've given my opinions on the developments here and here:
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/04/15/html5/
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/05/21/html5/
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 8 days, 17:47.]
Sharing Music with Apple iTunes
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/11/28/itunes-sharing/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|