Saturday, October 28, 2006

HTML to evolve; XHTML fails

Slashdot has an article about how W3C has realised the failure of XHTML and that HTML will be 'incrementally evolved'. Of course, there are many good points made by readers:
"Because we all know God created HTML in 6 days, and evolution is impossible. ;-)"
^ Always some humor.
"XHTML for all practical purposes, is HTML but with more errors. With XHTML, you get the power of being told that you have to put an end tag on all tags. And, umm, not a lot else. The benefits of switching to XHTML are mostly theoretical."
^ I agree with this quite a lot. I still use the old markup, primarily because nothing good comes from switching.
"If there were some truly compelling reason to upgrade to something else most already would have. When image tags were introduced, people abandoned lynx rather quickly, the same goes for transparent gif support, CSS, etc."
^ All they need is something that nothing else will do, which to be honest, I don't think exists.
"I'm not going to change all the code on my webpage just because they say, 'Oh, using <b> is so 1997, we're all using CSS now.' [...] In short, they can pry my <s> tag out of my cold dead hands."
^ I'm not changing until I can benefit from doing so. The only difference I see is the requirement for closing tags, which was never an issue with the old HTML.

Labels: ,

6:38 PM | Posted by mike | 0 comments posted below


Post a Comment

Barack Obama for President