[thelist] The Web's future: XHTML 2.0

Dunstan Orchard dunstan at 1976design.com
Sat Sep 21 11:40:01 CDT 2002

> > The question of course is: will we change to XHTML 2.0 and when?
> Never.
> People haven't even changed to XHTML 1.0 . There is a very interesting
> thread going on on XHTML-L, it starts at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/XHTML-L/message/3438 and isn't finished yet.
> One conclusion is that using XHTML is only interesting when you want to
> treat HTML pages with XML tools.
> Other than that, almost no one (on that list, where well known top
> developers debate the use of XHTML!) uses it in his/her daily work.

Personally I uses xhtml 1.1 strict for _everything_ I write (since april), I
don't see the point in not doing so.

I don't know anything about the politics or the deep technical or
philosophical arguments behind it, but I do know that it lets me write nice
clean, logical code and the validator is very picky when I feed it my pages.

This helps me pick up on errors (ok, not always 'errors' but badly written
code) which would slip by using a lesser DTD.

I fail to see what's wrong with that.

I also don't understand why everyone thinks the move to xhtml strict is such a
huge deal - all it means in day-to-day terms is that you get a bit tighter in
your writing and you lose one or two tags and elements. Personally, with the
possible exception of the 'target' attribute, I haven't missed a single thing
since switching.

<top-of-head statement with no background reading done>
Maybe you think the adoption of XHTML has some terrible connotations for the
web, but I think it's something we should all be using.
</top-of-head statement with no background reading done>

This xhtml 2 thing does sound a bit barmy though...

cheerio - dunstan :o)

Dorset, England

More information about the thelist mailing list