I think the most blame is on Microsoft who hasn't supported XHTML until IE8 now. And the timeframe between XHTML 1.0/1.1, IE6 and IE8... pretty wide.
From what I understand, HTML5 is just HTML4 2.0, so to speak. New features to the HTML language while keeping backwards compability.
Originally Posted by Adak
The failure of XHTML 1.0 (and yes, I do consider it a failure) is MS's fault, for not supporting it. Pretty much the same for XHTML 1.1.
The failure of XHTML 2.0 is the W3C's fault. First, they took far too long to develop it, with some obscure decisions and using hardly any industry feedback. Second, it was, as I said, too radical. You cannot break backward compatibility on the web. It doesn't work. Browsers won't implement the standard until there's demand, but demand was satisfied with HTML 4. And in turn, with browsers not supporting it, there was no incentive for web developers to learn the thing.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
Wait, IE7 supports XHTML 1.0 served as HTML. It offers Quirks mode for backward compatibility with IE6 which is ran by default (I think), and Standard mode that is triggered on the presence of a xml doctype.
You can easily test this in IE7. Just bookmark this link onto your IE favorites and use it when viewing pages.
EDIT: remove the "http://" from the link i provided
Last edited by Mario F.; 03-14-2008 at 11:20 AM.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Yes, but again, it's only HTML. And besides, so could IE6. But again, very poorly.
Bah. Microsoft and their stupid domination. Hope there comes along some IE virus/exploit/hack/whatever that Microsoft can't fix.
No, it supports quirky HTML syntax, even in standards mode, and interprets the XHTML as such. As such, there isn't really any value to using XHTML over well-formed, clean HTML 4.Wait, IE7 supports XHTML 1.0 served as HTML.
IE does not support MathML or SVG, which, when mixed with XHTML, show why XML really is so nice.
All the buzzt!
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
I can see I have a lot of catching-up to do. Been away for too long.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
I don't think XHTML 1.1 was a failure since it's been used widely. I've also used it in all my sites and it works perfectly except that I cannot server it as application/xml+xhtml. But it shows up the same anyway (some very little details are different, such as body background).
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
Max, you are mixing 1.1 with 1.0. It's 1.0 that is being widely used.
1.1 cannot be served as HTML. It must be served as xml. That's the whole purpose of 1.1. 1.0 (while the 0 in there may indicate otherwise) is really not what was intended for XHTML. It is simply a transitional DTD to help both web developers and browsers into adopting XHTML.
If you are trying to serve 1.1 as HTML you are already breaking the standard.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
1--% self taugt here... and rdrunk sryy
Good class architecture is not like a Swiss Army Knife; it should be more like a well balanced throwing knife.
- Mike McShaffry
You can wait as long as you want. But because IE7 conflict with other required software running in our corporate network - its install on the user computers is prohabitted by the enterprise policy of our firm...we just need to wait a little more for IE6 to be completely wiped out without even the right to a decent funeral.
All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection,
except for the problem of too many layers of indirection.
– David J. Wheeler
Hmm, maybe. But 1.1 is the one I use.
Well, W3 validator considers this as a warning and not as an error, so I think it does not matter THAT much actually.
Grrr! Why do larger companies never consider OTHER stuff than MS's crap? Why not Opera or Firefox? Or do they have some evil contract with Microsoft that they may only use their software? Companies really should broaden their mind. Oh yeah, I know. Open-source is evil.
Last edited by maxorator; 03-15-2008 at 03:33 AM.
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
Jaysus H. Where else did I do this.
Good class architecture is not like a Swiss Army Knife; it should be more like a well balanced throwing knife.
- Mike McShaffry
Drinking is bad.
It is pretty much an error under CSE HTML Validator. The reason why you get a warning is because the specification uses 'should' and 'should not' (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt) when addressing this issue.
The only reason I can see for a XHTML 1.1 file being served as HTML is in conjunction with a javascript that tests for browser brand and version. To simply change the media type to text/html will only make sure all your XHTML code becomes meaningless and a waste of your time since not even one line of it will be interpreted.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
