W3C, HTML5, 42
By glazou on Tuesday 22 August 2006, 09:43 - Standards - Permalink
Yes Franck (who pinged me by email with an invalid sender's email address so I can't reply...), I am the one who wrote that. Quite long before others, right.
" There is a fourth way. The fourth way should be called xHTML 5 because it should not be a super-strict-XMLization of HTML produced by a bunch of XML gurus on crack (no kidding, XML gurus must be on crack to make a monster like XML Schemas, but that's another "considered harmful" debate), but a real and fair followup to HTML 4. It's xHTML and not XHTML nor Xhtml because the important part is HTML, not the X. "
Comments
Uh, bad idea. The next version of HTML should be HTML, and XHTML should be what it is, XML-HTML.
The lower-case x thing will confuse 99% of people out there. 'HTML 5' ought to make sense to anyone.
Ian: I don't care about the name, I care only about the contents of the spec...
Read also glazman.org/weblog/dotcle...
Well I'm rather waiting for XHTML 2.0.
I currently use XHTML 1.1 with all it's strictness and i like it.
2 years ago i hated it for not having the target attribute on links but now i understand that its a million times better from a usability pov. I simply don't want my links to open in a new window (tab) unless i click on them with my middle mouse button.
Well sometimes it is a little bit annoying to define a id/class and modify the sites css to handle some rare special case where a style attribute would be better but well i still prefer a nice non-cluttered code, which on a side note is a lot smaller and thus reduced pageload times and server traffic.
... XHTML 1.0 is not XML. It's HTML. I agree with Daniel. We should talk about HTML 5. XHTML is nothing more than a buzz word.
if one day we want a professional langage and, at last, make useful enterprises applications (and not only expensive crappy htmldization of software) we need a STRICT, really STRICT langage and a good markup one and mature engine to render it
I totally don't care what is the name. I do think xml is a good thing. now, put all the logic you want in a X/x/icks-html 2.0/5.0/XP/2012 edition you can. I will follow.
(in our age, I do believe a really extensive ecmascript runtime with many common _standard_ libraries to create applications would be a lot of more useful).