Re: [WSG] Living With Legacy

[Andrew Ingram]

Christian Montoya wrote:
On 2/16/07, Chris Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Due to the discussions and hope generated in the web world around 
HTML5 I
too am switching back to HTML4.01 Strict. XHTML of whatever flavour 
seems to
elicit mutterings of consternation, and there isn't a good enough 
reason to
stick with it.

XHTML is not for your average every-day weblog, forum, or online
store. It's for complex web applications where the value of XML is
actually put to good use and for information systems where things like
namespaces and extensibility are actually necessary. That's why I see
HTML 5 as the next big thing for designers and XHTML 2 as the
be-all-end-all for academia. I'm looking forward to HTML 5 too :)

You've made me think about the whole XHTML2 vs HTML5 thing again (this 
probably won't end well).  There seems to be a lot of argument about how 
the two will be going head-to-head and only one will win, I think this 
is the wrong approach.  I think it'll be more like having a choice of 
programming languages, there's a range of choices but you pick the one 
most suited to the job.  I agree with your assessment that this applies 
to current HTML/XHTML too.

What I normally do is develop in XHTML so that I benefit from the much 
stricter validation, then I switch to HTML at the end.  Probably a weird 
approach but I agree with the opinion that XHTML should be served with 
the correct MIME type or not at all.


- Andrew Ingram


*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************