- From: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 00:05:28 -0500
>> There is an underlying assumption here, namely that there >> would be something wrong with picking one or the other >> and just using that. You are correct in identifying the assumption. >> If you want to use XHTML, then use XHTML, send it with >> an XML MIME type, and be happy. If you want to use HTML, >> then use HTML, send it with an HTML MIME type, and be >> happy. I see this as a very confusing position for the average person, and one that will consume lots and lots of unnecessary analyst and consultant dollars helping organizations decide which is the right solution, and lots of duplicated effort for supplies of both commericial and open source technology that must continue to support new specifications for both, ad infinitum. >> You don't need to do one or the other. It's just up to you >> which you do. Neither is better or worse than the other. >> They are equivalent, neither is deprecated, .... >> There's no reason to try and do both. If, as you say one is as good as the other, why in the world have both? It will just cause massive confusion and consternation. Better to have one that is a more ridgid subset of another one that is a more lax superset. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I bet most of the word-a-day web developers and vendors of products that would need to support both would agree. Has there been any attempt to learn their options on the direction of HTML5 vs. XHTML? -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org/
Received on Friday, 1 December 2006 21:05:28 UTC