XHTML2?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by UKuser, May 18, 2007.

  1. UKuser

    UKuser Guest

    Does anyone know the timetable for XHTML2 and if its due out anytime
    soon?

    A
     
    UKuser, May 18, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Scripsit UKuser:

    > Does anyone know the timetable for XHTML2


    There is none.

    > and if its due out anytime soon?


    Thank &Deity; it isn't. But something even worse, "HTML 5", might emerge in
    a few years.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, May 18, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. UKuser

    UKuser Guest

    On 18 May, 11:08, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    > Scripsit UKuser:
    >
    > > Does anyone know the timetable for XHTML2

    >
    > There is none.
    >
    > > and if its due out anytime soon?

    >
    > Thank &Deity; it isn't. But something even worse, "HTML 5", might emerge in
    > a few years.
    >
    > --
    > Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/


    On investigation - it appears there are 2 groups looking at HTML, the
    W3C and the WHATWG, the latter pushing for focusing on HTML over
    XHTML. However the W3C have setup an XHTML2 working group so focusing
    on this and development of it is back on the table.
     
    UKuser, May 18, 2007
    #3
  4. UKuser wrote:

    > On investigation - it appears there are 2 groups looking at HTML, the
    > W3C and the WHATWG, the latter pushing for focusing on HTML over
    > XHTML. However the W3C have setup an XHTML2 working group so focusing
    > on this and development of it is back on the table.


    You're behind the times. Late last year, Sir Tim announced that the W3C
    would re-open its HTML efforts, working in conjunction with WHATWG to
    establish an HTML 5 standard.

    XHTML 2 has different aims, and will be worked on in parallel by the W3C
    XHTML working group.

    The W3C HTML and XHTML groups are expected to swap some ideas though.
    After all, if there's some piece of functionality that would be beneficial
    to both languages, it makes sense that the syntax between them is as close
    as possible.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
    Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux
     
    Toby A Inkster, May 18, 2007
    #4
  5. On May 18, 12:33 pm, UKuser <> wrote:

    > On investigation - it appears there are 2 groups looking at HTML, the
    > W3C and the WHATWG, the latter pushing for focusing on HTML over
    > XHTML. However the W3C have setup an XHTML2 working group so focusing
    > on this and development of it is back on the table.


    The XHTML 2 working group was set up ages ago and is still going.

    WHATWG was set up by browser vendors to write a new specification
    based on current text/html practises.

    The W3C set up a new HTML working group last year, it has just pulled
    in the work of the WHATWG as a starting point.

    --
    David Dorward
    http://dorward.me.uk/
    http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
     
    David Dorward, May 18, 2007
    #5
  6. Jukka K. Korpela wrote :

    > something even worse, "HTML 5", might emerge
    > in a few years.


    I agree with your sentiments. As it looks to me, the latest HTML 5
    working draft from the WHAT WG is proposing something quite bad in my
    opinion.

    Gérard
    --
    Using Web Standards in your Web Pages (Updated Apr. 2007)
    http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_Web_Standards_in_your_Web_Pages
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, May 18, 2007
    #6
  7. UKuser

    Ben C Guest

    On 2007-05-18, Gérard Talbot <> wrote:
    > Jukka K. Korpela wrote :
    >
    >> something even worse, "HTML 5", might emerge
    >> in a few years.

    >
    > I agree with your sentiments. As it looks to me, the latest HTML 5
    > working draft from the WHAT WG is proposing something quite bad in my
    > opinion.


    What's wrong with it?
     
    Ben C, May 19, 2007
    #7
  8. UKuser

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On May 18, 4:52 am, UKuser <> wrote:
    > Does anyone know the timetable for XHTML2 and if its due out anytime
    > soon?


    The information about what is likely in xhtml2 indicates that it will
    be greatly different in many ways from existing xhtml or html. So far
    as I know, no current browser is ready for many of these changes. Thus
    full usage of xhtml 2 will not be possible until browser makers make
    great modifications in their browsers. Consider that no IE browser
    supports xhtml at all if it is served properly as application/xhtml
    +xml. True, one often can serve as text/html. However in this case you
    might as well use html 4.02 strict, because the xhtml page gets parsed
    as html and not xml. When served properly, an xhtml capable browser
    parses the page as xml, and this is extremely strict. Only one tiny
    error may mean you see an error message rather than the web page. If
    history is any indication, even if xhtml 2 became official today, it
    could be many years before most browsers support it fully - especially
    IE.
     
    cwdjrxyz, May 19, 2007
    #8
  9. Ben C wrote :
    > On 2007-05-18, G�rard Talbot <> wrote:


    > the latest HTML 5
    >> working draft from the WHAT WG is proposing something quite bad in my
    >> opinion.

    >
    > What's wrong with it?


    HTML 5 proposes several tags which defeats the purpose of clear
    separation of content with presentation/style and goes against what lots
    of web standards advocacy groups have been relentlessly promoting during
    over a decade. Restoring <font> is really bad IMO. Same thing with <i>,
    and new tags like <m>; even <sup> and <sub>: all of this should be
    replaced with CSS. Also, <embed>, etc Some others are questionable to
    retain from HTML 4: e.g. <base>
    Totally wrong, inadequate, incorrect, pure non-sense is the support for
    pseudo-protocol "javascript:".

    Maybe (in fact, I wish!) we should/would start a new, distinct, separate
    thread on HTML 5.

    Gérard
    --
    Using Web Standards in your Web Pages (Updated Apr. 2007)
    http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_Web_Standards_in_your_Web_Pages
     
    =?UTF-8?B?R8OpcmFyZCBUYWxib3Q=?=, May 19, 2007
    #9
  10. cwdjrxyz wrote:

    > The information about what is likely in xhtml2 indicates that it will
    > be greatly different in many ways from existing xhtml or html. So far
    > as I know, no current browser is ready for many of these changes.


    Actually, by virtue of their support for XML+CSS, most browsers can render
    the majority of XHTML2 already if you provide them with an appropriate
    stylesheet for the new elements. Some functionality, such as navigation
    lists and the improved href and src attributes, requires a bit of
    client-side script to get working though.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
    Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux
     
    Toby A Inkster, May 20, 2007
    #10
  11. UKuser

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 20 May, 08:55, Toby A Inkster <>
    wrote:

    > Actually, by virtue of their support for XML+CSS, most browsers can render
    > the majority of XHTML2 already if you provide them with an appropriate
    > stylesheet for the new elements.


    That's more of a bogosity than Appendix C!

    * It requires a non-standard CSS extension to generate links, as
    standard CSS can't create a href attribute on an <a>

    * It abandons the little semantics that HTML (any sort) already has in
    favour of a semantics-free XML that the browser no longer recognise as
    being HTML-like. This is worse than the tag soup position.
     
    Andy Dingley, May 21, 2007
    #11
  12. Andy Dingley wrote:
    > On 20 May, 08:55, Toby A Inkster <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Actually, by virtue of their support for XML+CSS, most browsers can render
    >> the majority of XHTML2 already if you provide them with an appropriate
    >> stylesheet for the new elements.

    >
    > That's more of a bogosity than Appendix C!


    What you quoted is bogus, yes, but that's not what I said. I added that
    client-side scripting is needed to emulate some features.

    > * It requires a non-standard CSS extension to generate links, as
    > standard CSS can't create a href attribute on an <a>


    You don't *need* to use CSS to create an href attribute for <a>. XHTML2
    for a link is:

    <a href="...">...</a>

    which is already supported in browsers, provided you use an XHTML
    namespace. XHTML2 makes the href attribute "special" though, instead of
    the <a> element. So the following is also a valid link:

    <cite href="...">...</cite>

    which is why I specified that client-side scripting is needed -- to read
    the href attribute of non-<a> elements, and either dynamically create <a>
    elements to provide link functionality, or set onclick attributes to
    emulate it.

    > * It abandons the little semantics that HTML (any sort) already has in
    > favour of a semantics-free XML that the browser no longer recognise as
    > being HTML-like. This is worse than the tag soup position.


    XHTML2 is not semantics-free XML. It is capable of expressing semantics far
    better than existing HTML can. Currently though, far fewer tools are
    available to deal with it.

    I didn't claim that using XHTML2 today is a good idea -- just that
    existing user agents (Opera and Mozilla I've tried, but I'd guess that
    KHTML/WebCore-based agents too) are able to deal with it, providing the
    author includes some CSS and Javascript to smooth over the differences.

    I do know what I'm talking about -- my CMS <http://demiblog.org/> has
    experimental support for current drafts of XHTML2 *and* HTML5. I wouldn't
    advise using them on production sites, but if someone's committed to using
    them, then demiblog won't get in their way. (For what it's worth, it also
    outputs standards-compliant HTML 4, HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0, HTML 1.0 Basic,
    HTML 1.0 Print and XHTML 1.1. Experimental support for ISO HTML is also
    available and works pretty well. All the markup produced by the CMS
    validates, but plugins and user-generated content may break validation.
    There's not really any way to stop that.) I have produced content in
    XHTML2, and it *can* be made to work, today, if you're determined enough.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
    Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux
     
    Toby A Inkster, May 21, 2007
    #12
  13. UKuser

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 21 May, 12:36, Toby A Inkster <>
    wrote:

    > XHTML2 is not semantics-free XML.


    No, but it becomes semantics-free as soon as you throw the "HT" away
    and treat it as plain unidentifiable XML, so that your CSS can render
    it.
     
    Andy Dingley, May 21, 2007
    #13
    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. Robert Jones

    html5 vs xhtml2

    Robert Jones, Dec 2, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    841
    Bergamot
    Dec 14, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page