Comments on: HTML 5 vs. XHTML 2: An Article Roundup and Poll http://css-tricks.com/html-5-vs-xhtml-2-an-article-roundup-and-poll/ Tips, Tricks, and Techniques on using Cascading Style Sheets. Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:19:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Umarfarukhttp://css-tricks.com/html-5-vs-xhtml-2-an-article-roundup-and-poll/#comment-37780 Umarfaruk Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:44:22 +0000 http://css-tricks.com/?p=730#comment-37780 Hey man it is really superb. thanks to css-tricks. for contacts <a href="http://www.iumar.co.cc" rel="nofollow">www.iumar.co.cc</a> Hey man it is really superb. thanks to css-tricks. for contacts http://www.iumar.co.cc

]]> By: XHTML 1.1 or HTML 4.01? | Probahttp://css-tricks.com/html-5-vs-xhtml-2-an-article-roundup-and-poll/#comment-37309 XHTML 1.1 or HTML 4.01? | Proba Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:03:05 +0000 http://css-tricks.com/?p=730#comment-37309 [...] yeah, and isn’t it funny we were discussing HTML 5 vs. XHML 2? [...] [...] yeah, and isn’t it funny we were discussing HTML 5 vs. XHML 2? [...]

]]> By: Matt Zhttp://css-tricks.com/html-5-vs-xhtml-2-an-article-roundup-and-poll/#comment-37136 Matt Z Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:14:34 +0000 http://css-tricks.com/?p=730#comment-37136 The issue here is basically what happens when a legacy system (browsers that only support HTML 4 / XHTML 1, older CMS systems that don't even have full support of HTML 4, WYSIWYG editors, and possibly some webservers) need to work with XHTML 2. Since XHTML 2 is not backwards compatible with HTML 4.01, the possibility of it causing older systems to fail entirely is distinctly possible. When these systems encountered XHTML 1 they would still be able to serve it since it is backwards compatible with HTML 4.01 (its really just HTML 4.01 reformulated as XML)However, XHTML 2 is XML. And therein lies the problem. The fact that Internet Explorer doesn’t really support XHTML as XML in any way, and the problems XML can cause when not all tools in the authoring chain are XML tools, means that there has been little incentive for using XML on the web. This is compounded by search engines not indexing XHTML as XML documents; very few XHTML authoring tools for XML; very few CMS or blogging tools supporting XML correctly all the way from input through database to generation; and very few ad suppliers supporting XML.However, HTML5 is (supposed to be) entirely backwards compatible. Meaning, old web browsers, CMS systems, and web servers will be able to at least work with it, and if it fails will (hopefully) degrade gracefully instead of failing entirely.In short, until all the old legacy systems that were built with HTML 4.01 in mind are gone, XHTML 2 may never be a recommendation. I think I'm going to go back to HTML 4.01 and wait for HTML 5 to show up. The issue here is basically what happens when a legacy system (browsers that only support HTML 4 / XHTML 1, older CMS systems that don’t even have full support of HTML 4, WYSIWYG editors, and possibly some webservers) need to work with XHTML 2. Since XHTML 2 is not backwards compatible with HTML 4.01, the possibility of it causing older systems to fail entirely is distinctly possible. When these systems encountered XHTML 1 they would still be able to serve it since it is backwards compatible with HTML 4.01 (its really just HTML 4.01 reformulated as XML)

However, XHTML 2 is XML. And therein lies the problem. The fact that Internet Explorer doesn’t really support XHTML as XML in any way, and the problems XML can cause when not all tools in the authoring chain are XML tools, means that there has been little incentive for using XML on the web. This is compounded by search engines not indexing XHTML as XML documents; very few XHTML authoring tools for XML; very few CMS or blogging tools supporting XML correctly all the way from input through database to generation; and very few ad suppliers supporting XML.

However, HTML5 is (supposed to be) entirely backwards compatible. Meaning, old web browsers, CMS systems, and web servers will be able to at least work with it, and if it fails will (hopefully) degrade gracefully instead of failing entirely.

In short, until all the old legacy systems that were built with HTML 4.01 in mind are gone, XHTML 2 may never be a recommendation. I think I’m going to go back to HTML 4.01 and wait for HTML 5 to show up.

]]> By: XHTML 1.1 or HTML 4.01? - CSS-Trickshttp://css-tricks.com/html-5-vs-xhtml-2-an-article-roundup-and-poll/#comment-36529 XHTML 1.1 or HTML 4.01? - CSS-Tricks Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:45:37 +0000 http://css-tricks.com/?p=730#comment-36529 [...] yeah, and isn’t it funny we were discussing HTML 5 vs. XHML 2? [...] [...] yeah, and isn’t it funny we were discussing HTML 5 vs. XHML 2? [...]

]]> By: strony internetowe wrocÅ‚awhttp://css-tricks.com/html-5-vs-xhtml-2-an-article-roundup-and-poll/#comment-34847 strony internetowe wrocÅ‚aw Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:09:01 +0000 http://css-tricks.com/?p=730#comment-34847 REALLY GOOD ITEM! IT'S HELPFUL FOR ME, AND I THINK FOR MANY USERS! NICE SITE THX SO MUTCH! CHEERS :) REALLY GOOD ITEM! IT’S HELPFUL FOR ME, AND I THINK FOR MANY USERS! NICE SITE THX SO MUTCH!
CHEERS :)

]]> By: Poll Results: Which Next Gen Web Language? - CSS-Trickshttp://css-tricks.com/html-5-vs-xhtml-2-an-article-roundup-and-poll/#comment-25479 Poll Results: Which Next Gen Web Language? - CSS-Tricks Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:45:51 +0000 http://css-tricks.com/?p=730#comment-25479 [...] few people didn’t know what I was talking about. If you need to get up to speed, I did an article roundup a little while ago. As for those “Other” folks, feel free to chime in and [...] [...] few people didn’t know what I was talking about. If you need to get up to speed, I did an article roundup a little while ago. As for those “Other” folks, feel free to chime in and [...]

]]> By: Elpiehttp://css-tricks.com/html-5-vs-xhtml-2-an-article-roundup-and-poll/#comment-19747 Elpie Mon, 26 May 2008 08:38:49 +0000 http://css-tricks.com/?p=730#comment-19747 I've been drooling over HTML 5 for awhile now and believe this will be the way I will be going for most web work. I just wish it was in place NOW. My greatest concern, however, is browser support. Standards seem to be taking just too long to get into place. Take CSS3 for example - there is already limited support in some browsers and I am already taking advantage of that. The longer it takes for the new standards to be finalised and for new formats to be put in place, the greater the risk that we will see hybrid development based around what browsers can support. I’ve been drooling over HTML 5 for awhile now and believe this will be the way I will be going for most web work. I just wish it was in place NOW. My greatest concern, however, is browser support. Standards seem to be taking just too long to get into place. Take CSS3 for example – there is already limited support in some browsers and I am already taking advantage of that. The longer it takes for the new standards to be finalised and for new formats to be put in place, the greater the risk that we will see hybrid development based around what browsers can support.

]]> By: Jordan Clarkhttp://css-tricks.com/html-5-vs-xhtml-2-an-article-roundup-and-poll/#comment-19041 Jordan Clark Thu, 22 May 2008 20:22:00 +0000 http://css-tricks.com/?p=730#comment-19041 I will probably use both, depending on what suits the content best. More than likely, I'll use HTML 5 for web-apps/blog-posts and XHTML 2 for traditional documents. (That is assuming the specs do not alter radically before they become official recommendations.)However, I think that HTML 5 will be favoured by "real-world" websites, as it contains a lot more snazzy features than the more conservative XHTML 2. I will probably use both, depending on what suits the content best. More than likely, I’ll use HTML 5 for web-apps/blog-posts and XHTML 2 for traditional documents. (That is assuming the specs do not alter radically before they become official recommendations.)

However, I think that HTML 5 will be favoured by “real-world” websites, as it contains a lot more snazzy features than the more conservative XHTML 2.

]]> By: Ahmad Alfyhttp://css-tricks.com/html-5-vs-xhtml-2-an-article-roundup-and-poll/#comment-18583 Ahmad Alfy Tue, 20 May 2008 17:22:52 +0000 http://css-tricks.com/?p=730#comment-18583 @David Madden ROFL!!!! @David Madden
ROFL!!!!

]]> By: Lachlan Hunthttp://css-tricks.com/html-5-vs-xhtml-2-an-article-roundup-and-poll/#comment-18539 Lachlan Hunt Tue, 20 May 2008 13:50:00 +0000 http://css-tricks.com/?p=730#comment-18539 There really shouldn't be any question about what people prefer. As far as web developers should be concerned, XHTML2 is irrelevant. There will be no standards war, HTML5 is the only real choice. If there are features in XHTML2 that people like, then such features are most likely already covered by an equivalent feature in HTML5 or are considered impractical and/or useless. There really shouldn’t be any question about what people prefer. As far as web developers should be concerned, XHTML2 is irrelevant. There will be no standards war, HTML5 is the only real choice. If there are features in XHTML2 that people like, then such features are most likely already covered by an equivalent feature in HTML5 or are considered impractical and/or useless.

]]>