|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: January 13, 2003 Semantic obsolescence (Dive into Mark) -- "I know, I know, XHTML 2.0 isn’t meant to be backwardly compatible. But damn it, I’ve done everything the W3C has ever recommended. I migrated to CSS because they told me it would work better with the browsers and handheld devices of the future, then the browsers and handheld devices of the future came out and my site looked like shit."
Reader Comments...
XHTML 2 both simplifies markup and improves its structure, but as a result is intentionally a clean slate approach. With the exception of the CITE tag (which doesn't seem to have an equivalent), Mark's rich XHTML 1.1 markup should happily last years, and even then he'll be able to convert it to XHTML 2/3/4 relatively painlessly (unlike those churning out invalid, XML-incompatible content, who'll find tidying up their archives to be a painful process). He's just so keen to be at the cutting-edge he's frustrated that his method of markup will ultimately be discontinued, even though that's a long, long way off.
While the passion displayed for web standards is commendable, the post seems a touch over dramatic. As I understand it, the omission of Any attempts at adherence to standards that are not yet implemented in mainstream browsers (unlike XHTML 1.0, which is implemented by virtue of being almost identical to long-established HTML 4) are bound to be frustrated. Indeed, following Mark’s link to “they told me to use the latest standards available” reveals that particular instruction is to “Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported.” Currently the latest versions simply aren't supported yet. Posted by: Chris on January 14, 2003 01:05 PM
zeldman has a rumination on it, too. www.zeldman.com Posted by: glasshaus Bruce on January 14, 2003 01:13 PM
i just had the "but they're takining X away" discussion with a workmate. if you consider it all new, they're not taking anything away - that's how i look at it. i think zeldman is right, they should rename it to GML 1 (Guru Markup Language version 1) to avoid confision. Posted by: dean on January 14, 2003 05:32 PM
I actually think it's commendable that the W3C is keeping the same name, XHTML, instead of issuing a new one. How many *ML languages do we need? :-) Posted by: Chi Lambda on January 15, 2003 02:31 AM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |