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.
- Previous post: Introduction to Web Accessibility
- Next post: EPiServer och tillgänglighet
Information, sponsorship, and externals
About the author
Roger Johansson is a Swedish web professional specialising in web standards, accessibility, and usability. More about me and this site.
Latest articles
- Validation statistics from Nikita the Spider Comments off
- An analysis of the sites crawled by the bulk validation tool Nikita the Spider during March 2008.
- Authentic Jobs API and Affiliates program Comments off
- The Authentic Jobs job listing service now has a public API and an affiliate program.
- What does Acid3 mean to you and me? Comments off
- Opera and Apple have announced that their web browsers pass the Acid3 Browser Test, but how will that help web designers and developers?
- Designing Web Navigation (Book review) Comments off
- Learn the fundamentals of navigation design and design better navigation systems for large and small sites as well as for web based applications.
- DOMAssistant bundle for TextMate Comments off
- To save keystrokes and speed up development I have created a DOMAssistant bundle for TextMate.
- First impressions of Internet Explorer 8 Beta 1 Comments off
- My impressions after trying out Internet Explorer 8 Beta 1 for a couple of days.
Comments
(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.
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).
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.
The W3C might adopt HTML5 when it is ready. (I think they will.) Search for WHATWG on Google.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.