W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2007

The point of XHTML 2

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:10:16 +0200
To: "Maurice Carey" <maurice@thymeonline.com>, "HTML Working Group" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tuhubei7wxe0ny@widsith.lan>

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:05:20 +0200, Maurice Carey  
<maurice@thymeonline.com> wrote:

> If html5 is the official contination of html4.x and xhtml is an xml  
> version of html4 and html5 will have an xml verion...why is there
> still a completely separate XHTML2?

In short, because there is a market for it. Some of the people who take  
money to adapt content in various ways are big fans of XHTML 2.

> Aren't all the major browsers members of this working group and pushed  
> for html5 to be the official new version?

Yes.

> Won't that mean there'll likely not be anyone implementing xhtml2
> when/if they ever finish writing their specs?

No. There are people who implement XHTML 2 stuff already. It is just that  
there is almost none of it on the open web, and there are difficulties in  
implementing the two side by side, so there is not much obvious motivation  
for a major browser vendor to implement XHTML 2. (In practice one of the  
goals of XHTML 2 is to use more generic XML technology. For example many  
of the important features of XHTML 2 already work in Opera, although not  
all of it - most notably we do not implement Xforms so you need to use an  
extension if you rely on it).

Cheers

Chaals

-- 
   Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
chaals@opera.com    Catch up: Speed Dial   http://opera.com
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 20:11:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:45 UTC