[thelist] The Web's future: XHTML 2.0

[Timothy J. Luoma]

Lachlan Cannon wrote:

 > there are a few nice things there too. Being able to type <abbr
 > title="PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor" href="http://php.net">PHP</abbr>
 > as opposed to <a href="http://php.net"><abbr title="PHP: Hypertext
 > Preprocessor">PHP</abbr></a>.

But how long will it be before you stop using <a href...> ?  I mean,
after all, right now you can make links to sections of a page using ID
or by using <a name...> as long as you aren't using xhtml-1.1

But since any older browser won't grok an ID link, and since all current
browsers grok <a name...> how many of us are really going to use
ID-based links?

Does anyone see a timeline when we'll be ready to say to a client, "BTW,
I'm going to make these links that won't work in older browsers when I
could just as easily have used an A HREF?"

I love the tighter code required by XHTML 1.0 strict.... I use it all
the time, it's the default for my templates.  I wish that badly coded
sites showed up in hot pink to shame their authors.  But I think that
some of these ideas are less wise than others.

TjL

ps -- I thought the Orwell comparison was quite clever and amusing.


--
30 Days to becoming an Opera Lover
                                  http://www.tntluoma.com/opera/lover/
Day 20: Stylin'
                         http://tntluoma.com/opera/lover/day20-stylin/