The Future: HTML or XHTML

Lachlan Hunt takes a non-religious look forward in The Future: HTML or XHTML. The difference from all the other HTML vs. XHTML articles I have seen is that Lachy states that HTML is (next to) dead, killed by sloppy coding and non-conforming parsers.

Posted on April 10, 2005 in (X)HTML, Quicklinks

Comments

  1. April 10, 2005 by Anne

    (Why are HTML and XHTML marked up as abbreviations but ‘vs’ not?)

    HTML as SGML has always been a pipe dream I guess. I hope HTML5 fixes that.

  2. April 10, 2005 by Roger Johansson (Author comment)

    Because Movable Type and the plugins I use for it aren’t perfect (they don’t automatically recognise every abbreviation that exists), and neither am I (I haven’t entered vs. into the database of abbreviations that should be marked up as such).

  3. April 11, 2005 by Small Paul

    The W3C aren’t planning an HTML 5, but might someone else do so? This is a development I hadn’t thought of. I hope someone does. It’d be fun.

    People don’t realise it, but HTML 3.2 is actually the future, as IE7 will be more secure whilst reverting its rendering engine back to IE3 due to a source control mishap.

  4. April 12, 2005 by Anne

    The W3C might adopt HTML5 when it is ready. (I think they will.) Search for WHATWG on Google.

Comments are disabled for this post (read why), but if you have spotted an error or have additional info that you think should be in this post, feel free to contact me.