html5 vs xhtml2

[Robert Jones]

Which should I focus on keeping track of? As far as I can tell each has
features that I like but neither has all of them. I know how to make use of
XML namespaces, but both the XML variant of HTML5 and XHTML2 occupy the
same namespace as far as I can tell. I know that both are working drafts
but it would probably be a good idea to keep track of at least one of them.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 02 Dec 2007 06:04:50
GMT Robert Jones scribed:

Which should I focus on keeping track of?

The stock market?

As far as I can tell each
has features that I like but neither has all of them. I know how to
make use of XML namespaces, but both the XML variant of HTML5 and
XHTML2 occupy the same namespace as far as I can tell. I know that
both are working drafts but it would probably be a good idea to keep
track of at least one of them.

Why? What do you need that html4.01 doesn't have? Personally, I think
xhtml is a dead end (-Good gosh! Blasphemy!) and who knows what html5 will
evolve into. Sometimes it's wise not to do anything about the things which
you can do nothing about.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Sometimes it's wise not to do anything about the things which
you can do nothing about.

Uh, isn't that stating the obvious?

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Robert Jones:

Which should I focus on keeping track of?

Which of what? Confused questions indicate confused minds, and the best
approach is to ask whether you are asking the right questions at all.

As far as I can tell each
has features that I like but neither has all of them.

Are you designing a browser expected to become popular in the late
2010s, or do you intend to design web pages? In the former case, HTML
drafts might be of some interest to you.

I know how to
make use of XML namespaces,

That's rather irrelevant to web authoring at present and in the next few
years.

but both the XML variant of HTML5 and
XHTML2 occupy the same namespace as far as I can tell.

Excuse me while I yawn.

I know that both are working drafts

You're exaggerating their status, using common misleading words. They
are really discussion documents aimed at creating sketches for drafts.

but it would probably be a good idea to keep
track of at least one of them.

What makes you think so?

In practical authoring, pay attention to what common browsers actually
do, but do not violate the official specifications unless you really
know what you are doing, and do not expect any behavior not mandates in
those specifications to be permanent. Don't believe people who claim
that HTML 5 helps you in this approach.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Travis Newbury:

Uh, isn't that stating the obvious?

No, because people can do much harm in trying to do the impossible (like
trying to help others without understanding the topic at all, thereby
misleading those that they "help").

But most people who quote the wisdom fail to understand it. This applies
to commonly quoted phrases in general, of course.

 

[Ed Mullen]

Uh, isn't that stating the obvious?

I don't think so. In fact, I think that's the purpose of the line; it
is not obvious to a lot of people.

One of my favorites is:

"Don't make no sense that common sense don't make no sense no more." -
John Prine

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
What happened to Preparations A through G?

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:26:20 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:

Uh, isn't that stating the obvious?

Naw. People try to do impossible things all the time and just end up
feeling frustrated at the futility of their efforts. Of course the really
important idea here is in knowing what is impossible and what actually
isn't.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:51:03 GMT
Jukka K. Korpela scribed:

Scripsit Travis Newbury:


No, because people can do much harm in trying to do the impossible (like
trying to help others without understanding the topic at all, thereby
misleading those that they "help").

<grin>Touche!</grin> You really are a good conversationalist despite the
dogma. The blurb above doesn't make you right, of course, but I do enjoy
the repartee.

But most people who quote the wisdom fail to understand it. This applies
to commonly quoted phrases in general, of course.

Most people fail to understand most things, particularly those which they
have trouble comprehending. Look honestly at your record on human
nature...

 

[dorayme]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:26:20 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:


...Of course the really
important idea here is in knowing what is impossible and what actually
isn't.

"actually isn't"? Does this mean it is important to know what is
not quite impossible? Do you have the time to explore the
possible worlds that thoroughly? Are you seriously suggesting
others should?

Please don't answer. Just send me that one teensy weensy sample
scoop of your brain I have been pleading with you about for ages.
I have a whole lab here ready to go to work on it.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

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/

 

[Andy Dingley]

Which should I focus on keeping track of?

All of them. "Keeping track of" is an important task. You shouldn't
_use_ either of them. This deliberate avoidance will remain
appropriate for at least the next couple of years (as we can't change
at least until IE 7 dies out)

As far as I can tell each has features that I like but neither has all of them.

XHTML has features, but isn't usable (on the web).
HTML >4.01 is merely change for the sake of it.

What we really need isn't a new HTML standard, it's new and competent
implementations of the existing 10-year old standard. It ain't broke,
so let's first fix what is.

 

[freemont]

I've given my opinions on the developments here and here:
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/04/15/html5/

I had a glance and saw a typo right away:

"On the 10th of June 1215, the a group of English barons"

then scanned and found:

"When the W3C commenced work on this standard, it decided that it would
allow itself to significantly backwards compatibility in a way that
previous (X)HTML standards hadn’t."

then further found:

"To make matters worse, many user-agents also lacked support for the
parts of CSS that effect quoting."

I'll proof the whole thing for a fee. ;-)

 

[Toby A Inkster]

I had a glance and saw a typo right away

Yeah, I know. There's tonnes. I really need to fix it up at some point.

--
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 9 days, 15:35.]

Sharing Music with Apple iTunes
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/11/28/itunes-sharing/

 

[john smith]

this just what i think buti say to hell with what the W3C saysjust dowhat
youwant things willwork with outhalfof the extra tags in html that they make
some likedoctype evencoseproblems in some
cases

 

[Bergamot]

just dowhat
youwant things willwork with outhalfof the extra tags in html that they make
some likedoctype evencoseproblems

Actually, using a Strict doctype tends to reduce problems, since it
triggers standards rendering mode in all the current browsers. This
means the results will be more consistent across browsers, not less.

I wouldn't bother with HTML5 or any version of XHTML. Stick with HTML
4.01 Strict if you want the best cross-browser compatibility.

 

[asdf]

this just what i think buti say to hell with what the W3C saysjust dowhat
youwant things willwork with outhalfof the extra tags in html that they
make some likedoctype evencoseproblems in some
cases

That's actually quite funny )).

I love the total lack of grammar, together with all the typos and bad
spacing... Yet despite all that we can discern (almost) the gist of what you
are saying. Your (almost) total lack of adherance to any semlance of
coherence makes for a quite copacetic critique on the bloat that occurs when
any 'standard' methodology is imposed.

Comedic genius. )

 

[Bergamot]

I love the total lack of grammar, together with all the typos and bad
spacing...

You might want to go back and search the archives for other posts from
"john smith", then act accordingly.