Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you say that HTML5 will not be valid SGML? I didn't. I said it wouldn't be SGML. The syntax might (I haven't looked closely enough at it to determine) be valid within the rules of SGML. I don't think it can be parsed as SGML though. Because SGML has never been deployed in browsers and many html authoring tools, HTML 5 defines a new serialization called html, which looks a lot like the previous known SGML. -- http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/html5-is-html-and-xml.html For compatibility with existing content and prior specifications, this specification describes two authoring formats: one based on XML (referred to as XHTML5), and one using a custom format inspired by SGML -- http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/ While the HTML form of HTML5 bears a close resemblance to SGML and XML, it is a separate language with its own parsing rules. -- http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/parsing.html -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Now I am even more confused! I was always under the impression that HTML4 and lower were valid SGML. That XHTML1 and up were valid XML That XML was valid SGML So how the ??? does that leave us with either 'serialisation' of the new language being in-compatible with SGML? Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Dorward Sent: 26 November 2008 11:07 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you say that HTML5 will not be valid SGML? I didn't. I said it wouldn't be SGML. The syntax might (I haven't looked closely enough at it to determine) be valid within the rules of SGML. I don't think it can be parsed as SGML though. Because SGML has never been deployed in browsers and many html authoring tools, HTML 5 defines a new serialization called html, which looks a lot like the previous known SGML. -- http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/html5-is-html-and-xml.html For compatibility with existing content and prior specifications, this specification describes two authoring formats: one based on XML (referred to as XHTML5), and one using a custom format inspired by SGML -- http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/ While the HTML form of HTML5 bears a close resemblance to SGML and XML, it is a separate language with its own parsing rules. -- http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/parsing.html -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now I am even more confused! I was always under the impression that HTML4 and lower were valid SGML. That XHTML1 and up were valid XML That XML was valid SGML So how the ??? does that leave us with either 'serialisation' of the new language being in-compatible with SGML? HTML5 is not HTML 4 or lower, or XHTML, or XML (disregarding the XML serialisation, as it isn't the serialisation being discussed). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
http://immike.net/blog/2008/02/06/xhtml-2-vs-html-5/ On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:55 PM, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now I am even more confused! I was always under the impression that HTML4 and lower were valid SGML. That XHTML1 and up were valid XML That XML was valid SGML So how the ??? does that leave us with either 'serialisation' of the new language being in-compatible with SGML? HTML5 is not HTML 4 or lower, or XHTML, or XML (disregarding the XML serialisation, as it isn't the serialisation being discussed). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Jonathan Haslett [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0404 563 690 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
The HTML working group is working on HTML5 which will have two serialisations. A tag soup (and emphatically not SGML) serialisation and an XML serialisation (which they are referring to as XHTML5). Why do you say that HTML5 will not be valid SGML? Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps I have missed something important: are we saying that HTML5 is essentially two different languages? HTML5 is Everything you need to know to build a browser with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it. I thought that it was supposed to unify the schism between HTML and XHTML. It certainly doesn't do that. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
From what I have read so far, you are pretty much agreeing with me. Hence, David, you said and I quote, HTML 5 is Everything you need to know to build a browser with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it., therefore, HTML5 (not to be confused with xHTML or XHTML), is being phased out. It would have to be, especially considering the previous statement. If they are including some definition of HTML with XHTML, then they are trying to get HTML designers used to using the simplistical form of XHTML in XML syntax/serialisation/yada yada yada whatever, correct? SQL is a database manipulation language is it not? Like XML? So, all in all, HTML developers will move more into what the purpose of XHTML is, correct? And it would have to unify the schism if it is to include all of the above stated, is that not right? Because everything that has been said seems to agree with I originally stated and questioned. How does it not? On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:12 AM, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps I have missed something important: are we saying that HTML5 is essentially two different languages? HTML5 is Everything you need to know to build a browser with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it. I thought that it was supposed to unify the schism between HTML and XHTML. It certainly doesn't do that. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Sorry, forgot to add, that the purpose of XHTML, from what some of the top designers and working group members have stated, I may have misinterpreted, but XHTML was built to help designers/developers transition from HTML to XML. On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Brett Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From what I have read so far, you are pretty much agreeing with me. Hence, David, you said and I quote, HTML 5 is Everything you need to know to build a browser with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it., therefore, HTML5 (not to be confused with xHTML or XHTML), is being phased out. It would have to be, especially considering the previous statement. If they are including some definition of HTML with XHTML, then they are trying to get HTML designers used to using the simplistical form of XHTML in XML syntax/serialisation/yada yada yada whatever, correct? SQL is a database manipulation language is it not? Like XML? So, all in all, HTML developers will move more into what the purpose of XHTML is, correct? And it would have to unify the schism if it is to include all of the above stated, is that not right? Because everything that has been said seems to agree with I originally stated and questioned. How does it not? On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:12 AM, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps I have missed something important: are we saying that HTML5 is essentially two different languages? HTML5 is Everything you need to know to build a browser with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it. I thought that it was supposed to unify the schism between HTML and XHTML. It certainly doesn't do that. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Brett P. -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Brett Patterson wrote: From what I have read so far, you are pretty much agreeing with me. It depends on how you define language. Hence, David, you said and I quote, HTML 5 is Everything you need to know to build a browser with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it., therefore, HTML5 (not to be confused with xHTML or XHTML), is being phased out. No. HTML5 is being phased in. It would have to be, especially considering the previous statement. If they are including some definition of HTML with XHTML, then they are trying to get HTML designers used to using the simplistical form of XHTML in XML syntax/serialisation/yada yada yada whatever, correct? No. They are recognising that some people want to use XML syntax and catering to them. SQL is a database manipulation language is it not? Yes. Like XML? Nothing like XML. So, all in all, HTML developers will move more into what the purpose of XHTML is, correct? No. And it would have to unify the schism if it is to include all of the above stated, is that not right? No. XHTML 2 is going to be a significantly different language. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
David Hucklesby wrote: The validator still needs a DTD though. If you mean the W3C validator, then no, it just got experimental HTML5 support. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: David Hucklesby wrote: The validator still needs a DTD though. If you mean the W3C validator, then no, it just got experimental HTML5 support. And the W3C validator misinterprets XHTML5 to be some lesser XHTML flavor... http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunlaug.no%2Fxhtml5-en.xhtml ...so it is a bit too experimental to be of practical use today. The http://html5.validator.nu/ validator OTOH gets it right... http://html5.validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunlaug.no%2Fxhtml5-en.xhtmlshowimagereport=yesshowsource=yes ...and is also useful for checking details. The W3C validator gets HTML5 alright, but I'm not sure if it gets it right... http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunlaug.no%2Fhtml5-en.html ...since the http://html5.validator.nu/ comes to another conclusion... http://html5.validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunlaug.no%2Fhtml5-en.htmlshowimagereport=yesshowsource=yes ...obviously because I've left the xml declaration in there. So, the future doesn't change the HTML vs. XHTML-XML relations, or lack of same. We will still have one standard, that can be applied to the web in (at least) two different ways... http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/html5-is-html-and-xml.html ...if they don't change something in the xHTML5 spec in the near future. Of course, only HTML can be widely used, as long as XHTML isn't supported by the most used browser. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
On Nov 25, 2008, at 8:43 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Of course, only HTML can be widely used, as long as XHTML isn't supported by the most used browser. I'm going to risk venturing an opinion here. The high hopes that many of us may have had for XHTML as the wave of the future seem, sadly, to have foundered on the reef of MS intransigence. Given that XHTML is not going to be supported by IE in the immediate future, if ever, serving XHTML strict as text/html seems a little quixotic. If your document can't be served as application/xhtml+xml then what's the point? My preference has been to use HTML 4 strict, and I think for now it may be for the best to recognize this as best practice. If content enters the work-flow as XML, then XSLT can be used to create HTML presentation documents. The HTML 5 spec is very slowly taking shape, and looking promising. So it would appear that for the next few years it will probably best to accept that it's HTML that will be the norm. XML is not going away, so by all means hope for an XHTM revival somewhere down the road, but for now, if it's text/html then shouldn't it be HTML as HTML, and not XHTML treated as HTML? IMHO, naturally, and of course YMMV. Andrew www.andrewmaben.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a well designed user interface, the user should not need instructions. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
* Given that XHTML is not going to be supported by IE in the immediate future, if ever, serving XHTML strict * as text/html seems a little quixotic. If your document can't be served as application/xhtml+xml then what's the point? There is also another reason to use XHTML instead of HTML and it does not involve browsers. When representing your code (xHTML) as XML, it can also be viewed as data. A perfect example of this is screen scrapers which read your web pages to pull specific content out of them. Best regards, Kepler Gelotte Neighbor Webmaster, Inc. 156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854 http://www.neighborwebmaster.com www.neighborwebmaster.com phone/fax: (732) 302-0904 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Gelotte;Kepler;;Mr. FN:Kepler Gelotte ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ORG:Neighbor Webmaster TITLE:Web Designer TEL;WORK;VOICE:(732) 302-0904 TEL;WORK;FAX:(732) 302-0904 ADR;WORK:;;156 Normandy Dr;Piscataway;NJ;08854;United States of America LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:156 Normandy Dr=0D=0APiscataway, NJ 08854=0D=0AUnited States of America URL;WORK:http://www.neighborwebmaster.com EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] REV:20070415T052107Z END:VCARD
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Andrew Maben wrote: XML is not going away, so by all means hope for an XHTM revival somewhere down the road, but for now, if it's text/html then shouldn't it be HTML as HTML, and not XHTML treated as HTML? IMHO, naturally, and of course YMMV. Of course. We have choices and preferences :-) Since HTML5 allows XHTML syntax more or less all the way, it doesn't really matter which flavor the document is coded in as long as it is served as 'text/html' ... and provided with the proper standards mode triggering doctype on top. It's just a trigger anyway. Since I personally wouldn't dream of intentionally letting IE6 switch to its not very standards compliant 'Strict' mode, while at the same time I definitely want IE7 and 8 and so on to obey W3C standards as best they can, I'll probably plug in an xml declaration on top no matter which mode-trigger I use - even if it's declared non-valid. So 'text/html' it is, and probably will be for most coders for a long time - maybe until internet as we know it is obsolete, and most of it will probably be non-valid and subject to error-recovery until the very end. I personally don't think the xHTML5 standard will have much influence on markup quality as such, although I'd love to be proven wrong on this point. Serving properly coded documents as 'application/xhtml+xml' is nice when one wants to push the boundaries and/or add in something that doesn't work when served as 'text/html', and knows those at the receiving end got a proper browser (or something else) that can handle it all. We're already filtering out weak, old and obsolete browsers from stuff they can't handle - from CSS for instance, or ignoring these browsers' existence entirely. Thus, letting weak browsers filter themselves out from everything, can be an interesting option, at times. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Kepler Gelotte wrote: There is also another reason to use XHTML instead of HTML and it does not involve browsers. When representing your code (xHTML) as XML, it can also be viewed as data. A perfect example of this is screen scrapers which read your web pages to pull specific content out of them. Any practical instance of which, in practice, has to deal not only with tag soup HTML but also malformed XML, which rather undermines this point. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Kepler Gelotte wrote: Ø as text/html seems a little quixotic. If your document can't be served as application/xhtml+xml then what's the point? There is also another reason to use XHTML instead of HTML and it does not involve browsers. When representing your code (xHTML) as XML, it can also be viewed as data. A perfect example of this is screen scrapers which read your web pages to pull specific content out of them. Given that it is easier to use an HTML parser then it is to trust page authors serving XHTML as text/html to produce something that is well formed - that isn't much of an advantage. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
From the few recent posts, I have become so far confused, as anyone would as to why, Gunlaug, you keep stating xHTML5 or as above you say XHTML5? HTML and xHTML/XHTML are different. xHTML is XHTML, albeit 1.0 or 1.1 or 2.0 etc. So, is it a typo? -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Brett Patterson wrote: From the few recent posts, I have become so far confused, as anyone would as to why, Gunlaug, you keep stating xHTML5 or as above you say XHTML5? HTML and xHTML/XHTML are different. xHTML is XHTML, albeit 1.0 or 1.1 or 2.0 etc. So, is it a typo? The HTML working group is working on HTML5 which will have two serialisations. A tag soup (and emphatically not SGML) serialisation and an XML serialisation (which they are referring to as XHTML5). The XHTML2 working group is working on all sorts of different things, including XHTML 2.0. See http://www.w3.org/2007/03/XHTML2-WG-charter and http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/xhtml-roadmap/ for more. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Brett Patterson wrote: From the few recent posts, I have become so far confused, as anyone would as to why, Gunlaug, you keep stating xHTML5 or as above you say XHTML5? HTML and xHTML/XHTML are different. xHTML is XHTML, albeit 1.0 or 1.1 or 2.0 etc. So, is it a typo? No typo, but I understand the confusion. We may call it 'HTML5', '(x)HTML5', 'xHTML5' or 'HTML5 + XML serialization', as the 'HTML5' drafts in existence to date cover both HTML and XHTML as two flavors, or rather serializations, of the same markup language. See: http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/html5-is-html-and-xml.html http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/ Keep in mind that we're reading drafts, so nothing is set in stone, and won't be for years to come. Gives us a good indication of how they're continuing, and smoothing, the relationship between 'HTML' and XHTML that began with 'HTML4' and 'XHTML1.0' though. To exemplify: one can in most cases just change doctype and a meta, and serve a valid and tested XHTML1.0 Strict document... http://www.gunlaug.no/html5-demo.html ...as valid HTML5 (text/html)... http://html5.validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunlaug.no%2Fhtml5-demo.htmlshowsource=yes ...or as valid XHTML5 (application/xhtml+xml)... http://html5.validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunlaug.no%2Fhtml5-demo.xhtmlshowsource=yes Note which validator I use - http://html5.validator.nu/, as the experimental W3C HTML5 validator won't play ball yet. I can't judge which one is more correct on every detail than the other, as both validators are new and experimental and will be tuned to spec in time. Thus, I may have to make minor adjustments to how I modify my old markup, once the dust settles around xHTML5 :-) Unless they introduce major changes to the specs, the syntactic differences are not creating any real problems for us who serve valid XHTML1.0 as 'text/html' and/or 'application/xhtml+xml' today. Only one or two HTML4/XHTML1.0 elements are signaled to be deprecated in xHTML5, so that's not a problem. Serving a document as 'text/html' vs. as 'application/xhtml+xml' does of course introduce potential problems in other areas, but nothing really new for the average document there either. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I made the same decision. I still follow HTML and XHTML, but anything I do (and have a choice about) is always HTML 4.01 Strict. I think it makes more sense than XHTML 1.0 Strict at this point since we can't really use real XHTML yet. It seems to defeat the purpose if you are using a Strict DTD incorrectly. Same here and looking forward to start using HTML5, at least for the personal projects first. Interestingly enough, though, I had to use Facebook Connect on a recent project, and in order to use it you have to use XHTML 1.0 Strict with Facebook's xmlns: !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xmlns:fb=http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml; Then, you use Facebook's AJAX bridge to replace their markup language with data from Facebook. It's not just a valid use of XHTML; it's actually a useful one, too. http://developers.facebook.com/connect.php But unless I'm doing something that justifies it, I stick to HTML 4.01. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:36:52 +0200, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: I made the same decision. I still follow HTML and XHTML, but anything I do (and have a choice about) is always HTML 4.01 Strict. I think it makes more sense than XHTML 1.0 Strict at this point since we can't really use real XHTML yet. It seems to defeat the purpose if you are using a Strict DTD incorrectly. Same here and looking forward to start using HTML5, at least for the personal projects first. Regards, Rimantas FWIW - You can use the HTML 5 DOCTYPE today. Browsers only use the DOCTYPE for standards / quirks mode switching, and all browsers switch to strict with this, I believe: !DOCTYPE html The validator still needs a DTD though. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
FWIW - You can use the HTML 5 DOCTYPE today. Browsers only use the DOCTYPE for standards / quirks mode switching, and all browsers switch to strict with this, I believe: !DOCTYPE html The validator still needs a DTD though. There is a validator for HTML5: http://html5.validator.nu/ Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Christian Montoya wrote: Interestingly enough, though, I had to use Facebook Connect on a recent project, and in order to use it you have to use XHTML 1.0 Strict with Facebook's xmlns: !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd; html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xmlns:fb=http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml; Umm - yuck. It's not just a valid use of XHTML; it's actually a useful one, too. It isn't even going to be a valid use of XHTML - since the DTD referenced by the Doctype doesn't include the elements from the Facebook namespace. If you go down that path, then you should be looking at getting a DTD that includes all the elements or using schema validation. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
I have, rather unfortunately, entered into an argument with a couple colleagues about the future of HTML/XHTML/XML. So, I was wondering, based on everyone's expertise level here who is right. I say that in the years coming, maybe 20 years from now, who knows, but eventually HTML and XHTML will be replaced by XML. The other two say differently, more along the lines that they will never do away with HTML or XHTML. So...that being said who is right? -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Brett Patterson wrote: I say that in the years coming, maybe 20 years from now, who knows, but eventually HTML and XHTML will be replaced by XML. The other two say differently, more along the lines that they will never do away with HTML or XHTML. So...that being said who is right? Replacing XHTML with XML would be like replacing buildings with brick and mortar. The point of XML is to make it possible to build languages like XHTML. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
... I say that in the years coming, maybe 20 years from now, who knows, but eventually HTML and XHTML will be replaced by XML. XHTML _is_ XML The other two say differently, more along the lines that they will never do away with HTML or XHTML. Even if HTML will be replaced by something it won't be XML. And I am pretty sure we will still have plenty of HTML around. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Christian Montoya wrote: You'll have telepathic computer displays before _real_ XHTML replaces HTML. link rel=stylesheet type=text/css media=mind href=... Ha! Nice one. A while back, I stopped using XHTML strict and switched to HTML 4.01 strict DTD's. Personally, I think HTML 4.01 strict is a good pick. I think some would say It does not matter if the DTD is XHTML/HTML... As long as it is strict. This FAQ is a good resource: Frequently Asked Questions About XHTML vs HTML http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=393445 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Micky Hulse wrote: Christian Montoya wrote: You'll have telepathic computer displays before _real_ XHTML replaces HTML. link rel=stylesheet type=text/css media=mind href=... Ha! Nice one. A while back, I stopped using XHTML strict and switched to HTML 4.01 strict DTD's. Personally, I think HTML 4.01 strict is a good pick. I think some would say It does not matter if the DTD is XHTML/HTML... As long as it is strict. This FAQ is a good resource: Frequently Asked Questions About XHTML vs HTML http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=393445 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** I made the same decision. I still follow HTML and XHTML, but anything I do (and have a choice about) is always HTML 4.01 Strict. I think it makes more sense than XHTML 1.0 Strict at this point since we can't really use real XHTML yet. It seems to defeat the purpose if you are using a Strict DTD incorrectly. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
I made the same decision. I still follow HTML and XHTML, but anything I do (and have a choice about) is always HTML 4.01 Strict. I think it makes more sense than XHTML 1.0 Strict at this point since we can't really use real XHTML yet. It seems to defeat the purpose if you are using a Strict DTD incorrectly. Same here and looking forward to start using HTML5, at least for the personal projects first. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
To follow up on Micky, Christian and Rimantas, here's the latest info on HTML 5: HTML 5 Draft Recommendation — 20 November 2008: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/ The Web Developer's Guide to HTML 5 - W3C Editor's Draft 19 November 2008 (written by my colleague, Lachlan Hunt): http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/ Med vennlig hilsen / Kind regards, Frank M. Palinkas Technical Writer Opera Software http://www.opera.com/ http://dev.opera.com/articles/accessibility/ http://frank.helpware.net On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:36 AM, Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I made the same decision. I still follow HTML and XHTML, but anything I do (and have a choice about) is always HTML 4.01 Strict. I think it makes more sense than XHTML 1.0 Strict at this point since we can't really use real XHTML yet. It seems to defeat the purpose if you are using a Strict DTD incorrectly. Same here and looking forward to start using HTML5, at least for the personal projects first. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Frank Palinkas wrote: To follow up on Micky, Christian and Rimantas, here's the latest info on HTML 5: Thanks for those links! :) Cheers, Micky *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
