XHTML, parsed using an XML parser is very specifically defined and
does not look different in different browsers, but few people serve
XHTML documents with the application/xhtml+xml headers, because IE
refuses to parse XML. XHTML parsed as HTML + no better than HTML. I
already use XHTML for sending documents to my friends.
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Anselm R Garbe <anselm_AT_garbe.us> wrote:
> 2009/10/18 Ilya Ilembitov <ilembitov_AT_yandex.ru>:
>> Yes, you got it totally right. But why do you believe that html would be on par with proprietary formats? I mean, is there any possibility that html produced by markdown (or similar languages) interpreter won't be displayed correctly in most of browsers (including IE)? I thought it's basic and standartized enough. I do agree, though, that S5 is likely to have some issues.
>
> The problem with HTML is that it's vagely defined and that it looks
> different not only in every browser but also every 2 years (because
> some mastermind came up with the next CSS and DOM features).
>
> This doesn't happen with plain text, so if you ask me what's better:
> HTML or Markdown, my answer should be clear. Plain text will look the
> same in 100 years, but potentially there won't be any HTML4 or HTML5
> browser around in 25 years time...
>
> (as a side-note: If you use troff or TeX I bet you will get proper
> results in a hundred years time as well).
>
> Of course the sustainability argument isn't very important if it's
> just about a presentation of the next great future technology that
> will be obsolete in 5 years anyways. For such I recommend use HTML,
> they will be a relict of their time anyways by then ;)
>
> Kind regards,
> Anselm
>
>
Received on Sun Oct 18 2009 - 17:15:34 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Oct 18 2009 - 17:24:02 UTC