XHTML is failure, and has been pretty much abandoned even by the web
2.0 people. Believe it or not, XHTML is still seriously crippled when
compared to HTML, and even the XHTML validator can't use it!
Also turns out most browsers render XHTML much more slowly than HTML,
because parsing XHTML is *HARDER* (yes, I was also stupid enough to
buy the myth that parsing XHTML would be faster, well, seems XML sucks
even more than I though!).
That XHTML is dying is a very good thing, it is another nail in the
coffin of XML, which is probably the most dangerous disease to afflict
the software industry in some time.
uriel
P.S.: I recently converted werc from XHTML to HTML5, and it was clear
improvement, much less verbose crap, much more clear and concise
markup.
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Tor Aqissiaq
<toraqissiaq_AT_googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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 Mon Oct 19 2009 - 14:11:53 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Oct 19 2009 - 14:24:02 UTC