- A forum for discussing XHTML issues for both XML and HTML developers
- Public Group,
- 746 members
5235Re: An alternative to frames AND to targets?
- Jelks CabanissJul 14, 2009
David Dorward wrote:
- 0 Attachment
> XHTML was designed as the replacement for HTML 4. After aYes, the XML serialization (aka XHTML as text/html) is treated exactly the same as HTML (and/or tag soup).
> decade it is still not supported by Internet Explorer
> (serving it as text/html and letting IE's error recovery
> cope with it doesn't count as support).
> The XHTML working group is being wound up at the end of the year.Actually, the *XHTML 2.0* Working Group is being wound up, because XHTML 2 was being (mostly) ignored as a vocabulary. As to where XHTML is headed, see the FAQ at
(take a close look at item 6 regarding the MIME types, etc.)
> Almost no site with an XHTML Doctype would function isExactly.
> treated as XHTML - even the well-formed, valid ones usually
> have CSS or JS that depends on an HTML style interpretation
> of the markup.
> As a client side language, XHTML has failed.I'd say not. Most modern tools (even (gasp!) Microsoft's Visual Studio) emit XHTML syntax. What has failed is the MIME type "application/xhtml+xml".
> HTML 5 is the replacement for HTML 4 - but is still in draftI would tend to agree.
> form, and I wouldn't use it unless one of its features
> provided a significant benefit to a project.
> It does have an XML serialisation, but that is still goingOnly if it's served as application/xhtml+xml. :)
> to make every version of IE released to date fall over.
Bottom line, application/xhtml+xml has failed, except in niche areas. HTML-in-XML-syntax is everywhere. text/html is here to stay; people are comfortable with it and see no real gain in using application/xhtml+xml, even outside the IE world.
I would go so far as to predict (assuming HTML5 gets the traction that some are saying -- and with XHTML2 gone and many of the browser vendors AND the W3C now behind HTML5, there may be something to it after all) that if the (current!) HTML5 requirement that "XHTML 5" be served as application/xhtml+xml, that people will just use HTML5 with the XML syntax and serve it as text/html and ignore "XHTML 5".
In other words, more or less what people are doing today: XHTML as text/html. :)
PS. Yes, I've heard all the supposed disadvantages, the "considered harmful"'s, etc. I've just never bought it.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>