It seems a bit confusing as to which web standard we should be using for an average website these days.
Back in the days of HTML 4 and HTML 4.01 it was a simple decision between Frameset, Transitional or Strict. Choosing between these simply depended on what sort of site you were building but we were encouraged to try to build a Strict site so that we would have the best browser cross-compatibility (with sensible browsers anyway... IE6 I'm looking at you...).
When XHTML 1.0 came along it was basically the same thing as HTML but implemented using XML. The decision was much the same: Frameset, Transitional or Strict, and once again, we were encouraged to use Strict where possible. It seemed like XHTML was the way forwards and I, along with many other web developers, began coding all my sites using XHTML instead of HTML.
XHTML 1.1 took this one step further by eliminating support for the Frameset and Transitional DTDs. This seemed like a logical progression because ever since HTML 4.0 we had been encouraged to create more strictly formatted web pages.
However, now with the introduction of HTML 5 we seem to be going backwards... Sure, HTML 5 introduces loads of application oriented structures which is great, but why couldn't they just do it in XHTML? Why not create XHTML 2.0 with all the new things they've introduced in HTML 5 rather than confusing us by going back to the old way of doing things in HTML.
Am I supposed to change all my sites from XHTML 1.1 to HTML 5 now in the interests of progress? And will XHTML 2.0 basically be to HTML 5 what XHTML 1.0 was to HTML 4?
What is the reasoning behind continuing to develop HTML when XHTML is still clearly the future?
Question
Nick Brunt
It seems a bit confusing as to which web standard we should be using for an average website these days.
Back in the days of HTML 4 and HTML 4.01 it was a simple decision between Frameset, Transitional or Strict. Choosing between these simply depended on what sort of site you were building but we were encouraged to try to build a Strict site so that we would have the best browser cross-compatibility (with sensible browsers anyway... IE6 I'm looking at you...).
When XHTML 1.0 came along it was basically the same thing as HTML but implemented using XML. The decision was much the same: Frameset, Transitional or Strict, and once again, we were encouraged to use Strict where possible. It seemed like XHTML was the way forwards and I, along with many other web developers, began coding all my sites using XHTML instead of HTML.
XHTML 1.1 took this one step further by eliminating support for the Frameset and Transitional DTDs. This seemed like a logical progression because ever since HTML 4.0 we had been encouraged to create more strictly formatted web pages.
However, now with the introduction of HTML 5 we seem to be going backwards... Sure, HTML 5 introduces loads of application oriented structures which is great, but why couldn't they just do it in XHTML? Why not create XHTML 2.0 with all the new things they've introduced in HTML 5 rather than confusing us by going back to the old way of doing things in HTML.
Am I supposed to change all my sites from XHTML 1.1 to HTML 5 now in the interests of progress? And will XHTML 2.0 basically be to HTML 5 what XHTML 1.0 was to HTML 4?
What is the reasoning behind continuing to develop HTML when XHTML is still clearly the future?
/rant :laugh:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
16 answers to this question
Recommended Posts