[thelist] XHTML overrated (was: CSS, Netscape, .class oddity?)

aardvark roselli at earthlink.net
Sun Jul 23 21:07:39 CDT 2000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter-Paul Koch
>
> I don't exactly believe in XHTML (though XML is
> something else again). See my article at
>
> http://www.alistapart.com/stories/xhtml/
>
> for my arguments why XHTML is not (yet) important.

now *this* i can agree with...  i've been debating on and
off responding to some of the emails where i see people
using XHTML in their code samples and asking "why?"... but
i've refrained...

i don't know why people are coding for XHTML right now... no
browser supports XHTML, they just support the nice
degradability of XHTML (which is really just the HTML4 spec
as XML)...

as such, i would venture to guess that i can code to the
HTML4 transitional specs for a couple years (at least), and
as long as my pages validate to the spec, who cares if i use
XHTML?  you assertion that the browsers will have to support
HTML is right-on... who's going to use a browser that will
*only* support XHTML and XML?  what about the millions of
web pages that aren't going to make that switch in a timely
fashion?  what about the fact that all those WYSIWYG and
CMS-driven sites won't make the switch immediately because
their tools won't handle it?  does DreamWeaver code XHTML?

no, i've thought about making pages forward-compatible, but
i honestly think it's so far off that most of my current
sites don't need it, and as such, why not just stick to the
HTML4 specs?  at least that way i can still enforce the
house style on codes, and know quite well how the browsers
will handle it...

i like the concept, but its practicality right now is
minimal...

i'm curious of you folks who are coding to the XHTML spec,
why?





More information about the thelist mailing list