XHTML2 and IE9

Work on XHTML2 has stopped, and now; all of a sudden Microsoft will support the application/xhtml+xml mime-type from IE9 onward. If they had done that in IE7, XHTML2 would have had a way better chance of survival. No clean sectional markup or navigation lists in HTML5. If it depended on me there would have been a HTML5 spec and an XHTML2 spec. One very strict and one for the masses. What do you guys think?

HTML5 can use either HTML or XHTML syntax.

What do you mean “the masses”? Why should there be a difference?

I think its a shame really. XHTML2 was SO much more complete than HTML5 currently is. It’s like the better specification has been assassinated so the weaker (but more sneaky) version has been able to gain the widespread ruling over the web, it’s just like the Lion King all over again. Alas when it comes to web design, I guess the W3C favour something which is less well constructed and more “kind” to the lazy people. IMO XHTML2 should be the one which gets all the attention… it was a tighter and better constructed specification. I still to this day have some REAL issues with some of the decisions that have been made to HTML5 :slight_smile:

XHTML 2 exists NOW. HTML 5 is still around 10 to 20 years from completion.

Even if IE9 is going to support XHTML 1 they probably means version 1.0 specifically since that is the XHTML equivalent of the current HTML 4 standard. They will probably only support parts of XHTML 1.1 if those parts are considered useful.

Of course if all browsers were to support XHTML 2 then there’d be no reason to continue with developing a poor relation.

I was under the assumption XHTML 2 had been long since abandoned :confused:

It was only abandoned recently because there are no browsers that support it and those concerned with the standards wanted to switch to concentrating on HTML 5 in the hope that it might become a standard some time in the next ten to fifteen years.

Of course if IE starts supporting XHTML 1.0 then the possibility of browsers actually deciding to support the XHTML 2.0 standard becomes more of a possibility even though the standard has been abandoned since at least that standard exists whereas HTML 5 is still a very liong way from becoming a standard.

Since many of the good features of HTML 5 were actually copied from XHTML 2.0 they could be implemented far sooner if XHTML 2.0 were to be revived.

Correct me if I’m wrong here but isn’t XHTML2 still in a draft format? The W3C ceased development on it so I’m guessing it’s an unfinished specification. So you can’t really say it’s here now (unless you give the same acknowledgement to HTML5). Personally I prefer XHTML 2.0 but will never use it due to the length of time it’ll take to gain widespread compatibility. At least HTML5 has some measure of “true” compatibility in that aside from a few elements, it’ll function right off the bat, even in IE6. :slight_smile:

My mistake then as I somehow had the impression it was a completed standard. Best to stick with XHTML 1.1 then.

I just checked, it’s at working draft stage (so quite a way off recommendation), and I’m guessing it’ll remain that way.

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/ :slight_smile:


Of course since HTML 5 hasn’t even undregone as much work as XHTML 2 had when it was abandoned there isnothing to say that it will not get abandoned long before it becomes a recommendation the same as XHTML 2 did.

After all most of the web is still using HTML 3.2 and slowly transitioning to 4. Very little of the web has actually completed that transition. If it is going to take 20+ years just to get people to transfer to HTML 4 after it became a standard then getting everyone to take the further step to anything beyond that is way out in the future. Plenty of time for several more versions of ?HTML to be proposed and abandoned before then.

After all most of the web is still using HTML 3.2 and slowly transitioning to 4
Really? I quite often view source the page I’m on and the vast majority are XHTML1.0 or HTML 4.01, with a few silly people using XHTML1.1 as text/html, and a few lack a doctype. It’s once in a blue moon I see anything below HTML 4 and most of the time they’re Apache error pages.

Yes, but if you look closer I bet the majority of them are using XHTML 1.0 Transitional or HTML 4.01 Transitional. That’s roughly equivalent to using HTML 3.2.

Only a few days ago there was a new post here on SitePoint advocating table layouts, for crying out loud!

But tables are part of HTML5, so they’re OK to use for anything, surely!

That’s roughly equivalent to using HTML 3.2.
How so? I thought HTML before version 4 characterised itself by basically being ignorant of CSS and using the now-deprecated presentational tags for everything to do with style. People who use XHTML1.0 Transitional (like Sitepoint ;)) might be poo-heads for using a Transitional doctype, but it doesn’t mean they’re not using CSS and still using <font> and the bgcolor attribute.

Yes, in 2022.

And that is the only reason to use a Transitional doctype over a Strict one.

Then they don’t need a Transitional doctype, do they?

Hmm. Sitepoint, I’d say “you’re using the wrong Doctype”, but there are font tags in there. Tut tut.

It’s kinda funny that SitePoint whose business is based around promoting best practices in web design / development would still be using deprecated elements :stuck_out_tongue: :lol:

@Force Flow: True, HTML5 can use XHTML an HTML synthax as it is designed now, but I think it would be better to let the HTML5 use an HTML (and only an HTML) synthax and XHTML2 an XHTML synthax.

@Raffles: an evolutionary (for the masses) and a revolutionary (for the avantgarde) spec

I don’t see why there should be a difference though. The “masses” don’t code the websites, they just use them. Or are you saying web developers are part of a two-tiered society?

you have webdevelopers and people making websites