W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Re[2]: [OFF LIST] HTML 5 and XHTML 2 combined

From: Molte <molte93@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:24:09 +0100
Message-ID: <9aa897060901060724u425284fl47dc5536d107b9b2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Shavkat Karimov" <shavkat@seomanager.com>, "David Woolley" <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Cc: "HTML Working Group Discussion Mailing-List" <www-html@w3.org>
I think both languages have advantages. I'll list some of the greater ones
(after my opinion) below.

First of all HTML is from the time where you didn't use XML, but now nearly
all major non-scripting languages to show something on the web is based on
XML (of topic: why isn't CSS? It could use XPath to access the (X)HTML
tags). And so should HTML be. Therefore you made up XHTML.

Having many languages based on XML is good, because then you can easily use
more than one language in one document (for instance MathML in a XHTML
document). It's also good that XML doesn't allow any slacking with the code
like not making it well-formed. That makes it more device-independent and
easier for browsers and applications to parse it without it would need a lot
of error handling.

That the HTML 5 Working Group thinks they can rebirth HTML is without good
reason in my eyes (why use an old, deprecated language when the newer is
just better?).

In XHTML 2 all elements (nearly) can serve as a hyper link or an image. I
would never have thought of that idea myself, but when I think about it,
what *is *the reason to have the img and a tags? Then it's just crazy they
keep the tags around when they're no longer needed...

Also a good thing about XHTML 2 is that it distances between structure and
layout. That should make the job easier for screen-readers and such (and
just make nicer code).

XHTML 2 uses XForms. After my opinion there is both pros and cons about
that. That the layout is not defined makes the user able to choose which
method to fill in a form he/she would prefer. But it also mean that you (as
the web developer) can't control the layout, and therefore I think it might
be triggy getting the input field to fit on the page when you don't know how
it is going to look like. So I think you might keep the HTML Forms for now
(alternatively you could allow both).

XHTML 2's role attribute might help defining your code and should be to
prefer compared to HTML 5's predifined classes (you should be free to choose
whatever you want for class names).

Now it should be time to see the good things about HTML 5...

Let's start off with the figure element; it's cool you finaly will be able
to make a description to an object or image.

input is improved with support for e-mail, date, time, numbers, and URLs.
Perhaps that is a better solution than the XForms?

Having tags like heading, footer, and so will better structurise the data.

And now, to end the good...

Of some reason HTML 5 includes old deprecated layout-tags like font used
when there was nothing called CSS yet.

HTML 5 believes a language needs to be backwards compatible. I wonder if the
persons behind that idea have ever though about, why you include the version
number in the (X)HTML document... The browser should be able to parse many
language versions differently.

In HTML 5 when using a WYSISYG editor you NEED to include which editor in
the page. Why do everyone have to know what I'm using to make my code? The
rule is probably there so the browser can avoid some errors, it knows, that
particular editor always creates, but why not just make the editor generate
valid code?

Waww... That was quite an e-mail. No matter I couldn't sleep this night, if
that was what had to get out. Maybe I should publish it... :O

-- 
Molte

CosSinCalc
http://cossincalc.com
Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 15:24:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:15 GMT