Gabe da Silveira wrote: > Third, by giving users the option of creating html4 documents, you are > lending validity to the idea that html4 is fine. I believe few people > share that feeling. > > Okay, this idea needs to be shot down right here. HTML 4 /is/ > fine--standards uber-geek Anne Van Kesteren switched back to HTML from > XHTML two years ago (http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/05/xhtml). XHTML in > practice is just a reformulation of HTML (unless you are using XHTML 1.1 > which few are) and offers nothing above and beyond HTML except for > stricter parsing. Sure the majority of standards-based designers are > using XHTML, but that is mostly an example of cargo-cult programming. > You will even hear some people say XHTML is more semantic or some > similar rubbish, but it is not. Make no mistake, XHTML is not innately > superior to HTML, and there's no reason to believe XHTML 2 will beat > HTML 5 as the defacto standard. >
There is plenty of strong opposition to HTML5 as well. I predict that no new html/xhtml specs will be adopted/recommended/supported for a long time to come. Also, for the record, it *was* the intention of the w3c -- the primary standards body of the world wide web (and made up of representatives from lots of companies... not just theoreticians in glass towers) -- that HTML 4.1 be the *last* HTML spec and that HTML be phased out completely. We were supposed to transition to xhtml. It wasn't supposed to be too hard. But microsoft killed all that. Now we'll all just argue about it until we retire. Oh what a wonderful world. Ben --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
