Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful

Tantek Çelik:
>
> In case anyone here hasn't seen this yet, if you have any interest in
XHTML
> 2.0, Mark Pilgrim's frank comments are worth a read:
>
>  http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/01/13.html#semantic_obsolescence

Actually it's full of misunderstandings.
The removal of cite (without explanation / alternative) is IMHO an error. I
already pointed out my feelings about q/quote and abbr/acronym. I'm happy
that img etc. are gone in favor of object. line/l is also much better than
br and h+section better than h1-6.

| they told me to use the latest standards available,

The linked W3C document actually says: "Use W3C technologies when they are
available and *appropriate* for a task and use the latest versions *when
supported*." (Emphasis mine.)

| Not deprecate it slowly over time, mind you, but just fucking drop it.

There's no need for deprecation in a not backwards compatible language.

He doesn't seem to have realized that the major problem of XHTML in practice
is, that it isn't supported by the major browser. Thus it's a good thing he
returned to HTML4, although for the wrong reasons. He should have read
<http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml>, too.

> I think there needs to be a serious reconsideration of XHTML2
> as an effort at all.

It should clearly be considered and advertised as a long term project.

> I'd rather see efforts spent on HTML4/XHTML1,1.1,Basic errata
> and test suites.

I agree that those shouldn't be considered final; e.g. there should be HTML
4.1 with SHORTTAG NO etc., resembling current browser behaviour like CSS
2.1.

> [2] XHTML2.0 dumps harmless elements which folks have found
> semantically useful.

Which (except cite)? IMHO it's right to drop unneeded elements even if
they're "harmless".

> It also dumps the extremely useful 'style' attribute

Except for quick-n-dirty CSS test suites I can't see any use for it. It's
fully replacable by id + CSS, too.

Christoph Päper