html5 vs xhtml2

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Robert Jones, Dec 2, 2007.

  1. Robert Jones

    Robert Jones Guest

    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.
     
    Robert Jones, Dec 2, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Jones

    Bone Ur Guest

    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.

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
     
    Bone Ur, Dec 2, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Dec 2, 3:17 am, Bone Ur <> wrote:
    > Sometimes it's wise not to do anything about the things which
    > you can do nothing about.


    Uh, isn't that stating the obvious?
     
    Travis Newbury, Dec 2, 2007
    #3
  4. 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 ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 2, 2007
    #4
  5. Scripsit Travis Newbury:

    > On Dec 2, 3:17 am, Bone Ur <> wrote:
    >> Sometimes it's wise not to do anything about the things which
    >> you can do nothing about.

    >
    > 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.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 2, 2007
    #5
  6. Robert Jones

    Ed Mullen Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > On Dec 2, 3:17 am, Bone Ur <> wrote:
    >> Sometimes it's wise not to do anything about the things which
    >> you can do nothing about.

    >
    > 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?
     
    Ed Mullen, Dec 2, 2007
    #6
  7. Robert Jones

    Bone Ur Guest

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

    > On Dec 2, 3:17 am, Bone Ur <> wrote:
    >> Sometimes it's wise not to do anything about the things which
    >> you can do nothing about.

    >
    > 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
    Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
     
    Bone Ur, Dec 2, 2007
    #7
  8. Robert Jones

    Bone Ur Guest

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

    > Scripsit Travis Newbury:
    >
    >> On Dec 2, 3:17 am, Bone Ur <> wrote:
    >>> Sometimes it's wise not to do anything about the things which
    >>> you can do nothing about.

    >>
    >> 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").


    <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...

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
     
    Bone Ur, Dec 2, 2007
    #8
  9. Robert Jones

    dorayme Guest

    In article <Xns99FA8BEFB6812boneurhyphe@85.214.90.236>,
    Bone Ur <> wrote:

    > Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:26:20 GMT
    > Travis Newbury scribed:
    >
    > > On Dec 2, 3:17 am, Bone Ur <> wrote:
    > >> Sometimes it's wise not to do anything about the things which
    > >> you can do nothing about.

    > >
    > > Uh, isn't that stating the obvious?

    >
    > ...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.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 2, 2007
    #9
  10. 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/
     
    Toby A Inkster, Dec 3, 2007
    #10
  11. Robert Jones

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 2 Dec, 06:04, Robert Jones <> wrote:
    > 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.
     
    Andy Dingley, Dec 3, 2007
    #11
  12. Robert Jones

    freemont Guest

    On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:07:43 +0000, Toby A Inkster writ:

    > 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. ;-)

    --
    "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·..·¯`·-> freemont <-·¯`·..·¯
     
    freemont, Dec 3, 2007
    #12
  13. freemont wrote:

    > 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/
     
    Toby A Inkster, Dec 4, 2007
    #13
  14. Robert Jones

    john smith Guest

    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
     
    john smith, Dec 14, 2007
    #14
  15. Robert Jones

    Bergamot Guest

    john smith wrote:
    > 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.

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Dec 14, 2007
    #15
  16. Robert Jones

    asdf Guest

    "john smith" <> wrote in message
    news:fjstch$g1l$...
    > 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. :))
     
    asdf, Dec 14, 2007
    #16
  17. Robert Jones

    Bergamot Guest

    asdf wrote:
    > "john smith" <> wrote in message
    > news:fjstch$g1l$...
    >> this just what i think

    >
    > 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.

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Dec 14, 2007
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. XHTML2.0

    , Feb 5, 2006, in forum: XML
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,791
    CyberVerse
    May 27, 2012
  2. UKuser

    XHTML2?

    UKuser, May 18, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    860
    Andy Dingley
    May 21, 2007
  3. n0ctis

    HTML5 vs. XHTML

    n0ctis, Aug 15, 2008, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,298
    SpaceGirl
    Aug 18, 2008
  4. Ganesh

    HTML5

    Ganesh, Aug 30, 2009, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    70
    Views:
    3,141
    Ganesh
    Sep 23, 2009
  5. pranay

    HTML5 and HTTP

    pranay, Oct 18, 2009, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    513
Loading...

Share This Page