|
Welcome
Guest
| Register
| Login
|
|
|
| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Online | User List | Help |
Killersites.com Forum
General Web Design
HTML and JavaScript.
Thread: Differences between HTML5 and XHTML2.0
|
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Thread Type: Sticky Thread Total posts in this thread: 16
|
|
| Author |
|
shelfimage
Advanced Member USA Joined: Mar 24, 2005 Post Count: 3000 Status: Offline |
I read a good article this morning that discusses the differences of the 2 future recommendations from the W3. This is a little like the Beta vs VHS development of video technology. For those of you not old enough to know what a vcr is, then it is like blue ray vs HDDVD. http://immike.net/blog/2008/02/06/xhtml-2-vs-html-5/ I like the HTML5 direction better, but that may because XHTML2.0 introduces new concepts that will take more time to learn. Although if a developer can master XHTML2.0, he/she will become a very valuable resource as these new standards gain traction. ---------------------------------------- "The art of life lies in a constant readjustment to our surroundings." -Okakura Kakuzo Save the developers<!> Maine Webworks |
||
|
|
Zombie
Advanced Member Right behind you... Joined: Jul 25, 2007 Post Count: 328 Status: Offline |
To the best of my knowledge there is no longer a XHTML 2.0, it has been renamed XHTML 5.0 to stay with HTML5. I do not see it as a Vs. situation. XHTML is XML to be used with XML based languages like SVG and MathML. HTML 5 is meant to be used with normal run of the mill HTML pages. I think they will both run parallel as XHTML and HTML do today. That said I have not read on the subject lately or the link you added, will try to get to it at lunch. XHTML will never really be as wide spread as originally planned. No commercial web site can allow their web site to be completely broken because someone wrote & instead of &, XHTML is just to picky and to strict for use by anyone but solid professional developers, even then we break them often enough. If anyone but the developer has access to the page... forget it. As for BlueRay Vs. HDDVD, recently as one or two weeks ago a leader in HDDVD called the race decided. 5 of the 7 top movies studios have chosen BlueRay, only 2 chose HDDVD. Alas... time to ship HDDVD into the closet with your Beta video player and 8 Track tapes. ---------------------------------------- "If you are bitten by a Zombie you should contact authorities and then kill yourself via traumatic head wound or have an acquaintance kill you." - A Pamphlet of the Department of Homeland Defence |
||
|
|
LSW
Advanced Member USA Joined: Nov 27, 2003 Post Count: 6287 Status: Offline |
Excellent article - I think I would go for HTML 5, simple is better and backwards compatibility is important... But I like the Navigation list idea and anything being linked. making it a sticky ---------------------------------------- Gu.aal kwsh� yak'�i it�akw ijeet wugood�k LSW-WebDesign.com |
||
|
|
Wickham
Advanced Member UK Joined: Sep 17, 2007 Post Count: 590 Status: Offline |
I have a few old websites with over a hundred pages in XHTML 1.0 so I am wondering whether to convert them back to HTML 4.01 and be ready for HTML 5.0. W3Schools, a good tutorial, has made no attempt yet to convert back to HTML from XHTML 1.0 Transitional. W3Schools, a good tutorial, said here:- http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/xhtml_howto.asp W3Schools was converted from HTML to XHTML the weekend of 18. and 19. December 1999, by Hege Refsnes and St�le Refsnes. and commented here:- http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_summary.asp XHTML is the "new" HTML. The latest HTML recommendation is HTML 4.01. This is the last and final HTML version. HTML will be replaced by XHTML, which is a stricter and cleaner version of HTML. which is obviously out of date now. It is OK to leave old pages in XHTML 1.0 and code new pages in HTML 4.01 but there can be irritating problems if you copy code from an old page into a new one and then have to edit all the XHTML closing tags, so is it better to convert the whole website now? What are others doing? I notice that a lot of professional sites still use XHTML 1.0. Is HTML 5.0 going to adopt the XHTML features like /> for closing tags? In which case there would be less need to convert back to HTML. Edit: I will want IE6 to read my sites for as long as IE6 exists, so XHTML 1.1 and 2.0 are out of the question. ---------------------------------------- Code downloaded to my PC will be deleted in due course. WIN XP SP3; IE7, Firefox 3.0, Opera and Safari for Windows; screen resolution usually 1024x768. IE6 on W98 with 800*600. ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Wickham at Mar 6, 2008 10:34:51 AM] |
||
|
|
LSW
Advanced Member USA Joined: Nov 27, 2003 Post Count: 6287 Status: Offline |
I have a few old websites with over a hundred pages in XHTML 1.0 so I am wondering whether to convert them back to HTML 4.01 and be ready for HTML 5.0. No, makes no sence in my opion to convert older pages. HTML 5 is not guarenteed to become a standard, nor become one in it's current state, it may still change drastically. W3Schools, a good tutorial, said here:- http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/xhtml_howto.asp W3Schools was converted from HTML to XHTML the weekend of 18. and 19. December 1999, by Hege Refsnes and St�le Refsnes. and commented here:- http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_summary.asp XHTML is the "new" HTML. The latest HTML recommendation is HTML 4.01. This is the last and final HTML version. HTML will be replaced by XHTML, which is a stricter and cleaner version of HTML. which is obviously out of date now. That is a common misconception. Back in 1999 many people sad and many books claimed the same. XHTML was never meant as a replacement for HTML. Nor is HTML out of date, it has been tweaked over generations and many considered it as good as it would get. But things change and Accessibility became more an issue and a new technology was developed that has now been renamed HTML 5. It was renamed as those in charge saw that it could replace HTML 4.01... but it was not HTML 4.01 getting tweaked again. 4.01 was seen as the final itteration of HTML until Web 2 came about. Also the last statement is totally false... XHTML is NOT a stricter cleaner version of HTML, it IS XML. HTML is a SGML language served as text/html. XHTML is XML language and served as application XHTML+XML or thereabouts. XHTML is an XML language and not a HTML language. They are two different animals who look allot alike. Whales look like fish but they are not. XHTML looks like HTML but it is not. It is OK to leave old pages in XHTML 1.0 and code new pages in HTML 4.01 but there can be irritating problems if you copy code from an old page into a new one and then have to edit all the XHTML closing tags, so is it better to convert the whole website now? If you are not writing with a XML based language like SVG or MathML then there is no reason to even use XHTML. So no reason to convert. What are others doing? I notice that a lot of professional sites still use XHTML 1.0. Professional as in? If you look at the leading blogs of the top names in web design you will find many using HTML. Being XML, XHTML 1.0 is meant to be served as XML. If you do so, the first mistake you make will keep the site from loading at all. IE will not open it but try to download it. If you do not serve it as XML intentionally using content negotiation... then you are serving HTML. This is called "Tag Soup," you can write all the XHTML you want but you are serving the browser HTML. Poorly written HTML because HTML does not have self closing tags. So most Professional web developers I have dealt with in fact use HTML as that is the correct tool. My old web site was HTML and my new web site is only XHTML "Tag Soup" becasue it is a third party template and I have not gotten around to finishing a HTML template of my own. Is HTML 5.0 going to adopt the XHTML features like /> for closing tags? In which case there would be less need to convert back to HTML. I would doubt it. It is not a convention, it is a XML requirement. HTML is not XML so would not require it. The rule of thumb is simple. If it is a static normal web page using normal technologies... it can be/should be written in HTML. If you are using XHTML languages like SVG and MathML, you will want to use XHTML as that is what it is meant for. Simple XML can be used in HTML, we are talking other languages based on XML. Back around 1999 XML was touted as the future of web design by people who did not understand it. But today we realize that if a web site is built in XHTML 1.1, it has to be served as XML. If it is served as XML, IE will puke and the smallest mistake by you or your customer who wishes to make changes themselves will render the site useless. The user will get a white page with a simple red error message, the site will be dead. This make the language useless to "civilians." That is why most knowledgeable web developers have turned their backs on XHTML or choose to serve it as HTML Tag Soup. The rest simply do not understand and still think they are serving XHTML be writing it. ---------------------------------------- Gu.aal kwsh� yak'�i it�akw ijeet wugood�k LSW-WebDesign.com |
||
|
|
Weisbrod
Newbie Canada Joined: Jan 26, 2008 Post Count: 49 Status: Offline |
Wooo Hooo!!! Html is finally being recognized for the semantic markup language that it always has been... I truly believe there is no need to add an extra layer of data definitions to HTML... It is unnecessary bloat... while I do agree that XML is a superior way to format and deliver data sets... I certainly believe that HTML should be improved upon and used in favor to an overly complex and otherwise unnecessary XML standard... Now... Can everybody move onto the real things that matter... Like VML and SVG integration so we can ditch flash and pdf for good... http://www.lutanho.net/svgvml3d/index.html James Software Developer http://www.sitebyjames.com/ ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Weisbrod at Mar 26, 2008 7:45:13 PM] |
||
|
|
LSW
Advanced Member USA Joined: Nov 27, 2003 Post Count: 6287 Status: Offline |
SVG and VML are examples of when you would want to use XHTML... but as long as there is little support and no support of XHTML by IE... sort of dead in the water. It looked good but I am not to sure either will ever go anyplace they lost the momentum. ---------------------------------------- Gu.aal kwsh� yak'�i it�akw ijeet wugood�k LSW-WebDesign.com |
||
|
|
Weisbrod
Newbie Canada Joined: Jan 26, 2008 Post Count: 49 Status: Offline |
It looked good but I am not to sure either will ever go anyplace they lost the momentum. I doubt that very much... http://maps.google.com/ That's VML and SVG... I for one had a 3d environment up and running once... sort of like tank 3d with 3d Json objects sent to the browser.... People just don't want to invest the time to do it right... they insist on using flash... but the SEO wars have turned the tide... I think you will see more people push SVG and VML in the near future... and if they don't... then let me be one of the pioneers... that's what I say... |
||
|
|
LSW
Advanced Member USA Joined: Nov 27, 2003 Post Count: 6287 Status: Offline |
LOL - Wow, Google uses it, that in one... Consider that SVG was released back when I was in school, so around 2000 as the great new thing... much like XHTML, XML and Python. XML is not as widespread as it was expected to be, though used allot, it has not met expectations, XHTML is only wide spread because 97% of people use it incorrectly and who hears much of Python these days. SVG (and lesser VML) should be on oevery web page and supported by every browser is use today based on it release in 2000/2001 or so. But they are not, and IE still does not support XHTML. So they have indeed stalled in their momentum and other technologies have been released. I would love to see SVG widespread, but it has not happened yet. ---------------------------------------- Gu.aal kwsh� yak'�i it�akw ijeet wugood�k LSW-WebDesign.com |
||
|
|
Weisbrod
Newbie Canada Joined: Jan 26, 2008 Post Count: 49 Status: Offline |
But they are not, and IE still does not support XHTML. Honestly... I had no idea... I use HTML 4.01 and always have... VML and SVG have ben aorund for such a long time but because IE has not adopted it basically makes the learning curve twice as difficult if you want to implement vector graphics without the use of a plug in... BUT... it's just like the Netscape / Explorer wars... eventually somebody caved in and lost... Eventually people will demand that their vector graphics interact with their page elements in an SEO friendly manner... Those who can offer it will be more valuable than those who can use XHTML 2.0... |
||
|
|
|
|
Current timezone is GMT Nov 20, 2009 8:44:23 PM |
