Hey Ryan I think most of your points are good ones. If you're validating all your XHTML - then great. The point about mime types is a fairly minor one IMHO, especially if your XHTML is valid. I just think invalid XHTML is a greater sin than invalid HTML 4.1. I can't guarantee that all my pages are valid HTML 4.1 so I'll stick with the lesser evil for the moment.
>HTML 1, 2, and 3 still has support.. but I keep asking myself >why anyone would want to use any of them. I'm not suggesting that people should use them - my point is that the myth that XHTML has suddenly rendered HTML 4 redundant is exactly that - a myth. HTML 4 is going to continue to be a great tool for a number of years. >(1) Wanting to keep current with the current standards The way the process goes is W3C issue a recommendation, the tool makers slowly start adapting their tools to suit and when the tools reach a certain level of support web developers start implementing the standards in their work. I think John's talk last night highlighted how long it took for this process to take place in regards to CSS (4-6 years?), but it has happened. I think the idea that everyone should jump to the latest standard before the tools have properly implemented it is going to cause problems that are not immediately apparent. At the moment the tools are not ready. With MS saying IE6 is it until Longhorn, we're looking at about 3-5 years before proper tools will be in place on most desktops. Look at RSS - how does your blog reader (BTW: check out http://www.bradsoft.com/feeddemon/index.asp - a very nice tool) handle invalid RSS feeds? Generally they bork completely and good for them. What happens when the browser makers all reach the conclusion that they have to do XHTML properly and present error messages instead of best guesses at invalid content? Half the web suddenly goes offline? Of course this will never happen, no browser maker is going to release a product that prevents users from seeing that much content. So what then? We are stuck in this cycle of "tag-soup" and XHTML becomes a joke? Maybe it was a pipe dream to start with because the web is about easy authoring not strict mark up rules? Time to slap a patent on PNXHTML (Probably Not eXtensible HyperText Mark-up Language)? The biggest mistake in the creation of XHTML was including the letters HTML in the name. This gives the false impression that it is to be treated as HTML 5. It is not. It is a completely different way of doing things that borrows heavily from the syntax & infrastructure that HTML uses (much like SGML & XML). Anyway my 2c - I think its beer-o-clock. Cheers Mark ------------------ Mark Stanton Technical Director Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: 9956 6388 Mob: 0410 458 201 Fax: 9956 8433 http://www.gruden.com ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *****************************************************
