tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4350479895872803738.post7208740888447716125..comments2024-03-26T00:29:46.821-07:00Comments on Navarr Barnier: XHTML2 vs. HTML5Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06358830143045709829noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4350479895872803738.post-59314878442869911402022-04-05T11:45:49.862-07:002022-04-05T11:45:49.862-07:00The 2022 Hummer interior is a featured car model b...The <a href="https://www.gtopcars.com/makers/hummer/2022-hummer-h2/" rel="nofollow">2022 Hummer interior</a> is a featured car model by the manufacturer.Georginahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453344011373163343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4350479895872803738.post-42208932748635840452008-01-03T12:47:00.000-08:002008-01-03T12:47:00.000-08:00Actually the HTML5 spec doesn't take a positio...Actually the HTML5 spec doesn't take a position on HTML vs XHTML, the WHATWG HTML5 spec<br /> extends both at the same time and so leaves the choice of which to use up to the Web author.<br><br>You<br /> say that XHTML was started and controlled by the W3C group, making sure it gets properly implemented, but in<br /> fact XHTML1 was only implemented by Apple, Opera and Mozilla, the same companies that initially started the<br /> WHATWG, and XHTML2 was not implemented by anyone, and some of the browser vendors have even said they'll<br /> likely never implement it, so it's not clear that the W3C actually are making sure it's getting implemented.<br><br>With<br /> HTML5, I (as the editor) am talking to the browser vendors on a regular basis to make sure that they will<br /> implement it, and am making sure that it isn't wild and unordered.<br><br>We're also making<br /> very sure that HTML5 is just a backwards-compatible extension to HTML, so that browsers don't have to<br /> implement yet another set of standards, as you put it. In fact, we're defining the legacy HTML in HTML5 in<br /> extreme detail so that new browser vendors can write new browsers without having to reverse-engineer the<br /> other browsers (in the past, the specs were very incomplete and it was basically impossible to write a new<br /> browser without referring to the other ones).<br><br>Web Forms 2.0 is a part of HTML5. We<br /> actually started HTML5, starting with Web Forms 2, specifically because we didn't think XForms, XML Events,<br /> and XHTML2 were going to be improving the Web.<br><br>However, we actually are working with<br /> the W3C now. There's an HTML5 working group in the W3C that is chartered to work with the WHATWG.<br><br>If<br /> you would like to take part in this work, please do feel free to do so. You need but join the<br /> whatwg@whatwg.org mailing list, which you can find at: http://whatwg.org/mailing-list#specs<br><br>If<br /> you have any feedback and don't want to join the list you can also just e-mail me directly at: ian@hixie.ch<br><br>We<br /> do want your feedback!Hixienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4350479895872803738.post-60860768379798136492008-02-29T06:07:00.000-08:002008-02-29T06:07:00.000-08:00I completely agree with this. Once I began researc...I completely agree with this. Once I began researching XHTML2 and CSS3 in great detail,<br /> I wanted them both very badly. I do not understand why the current browser industry is so fickle when it<br /> comes to implementing standards. Is it REALLY that difficult to implement? Shouldn't having a concrete<br /> specifications document make it easy to design and test?<br><br>Also, I agree on the HTML5<br /> issue. Why is that system being updated? Let XHTML shine! We do not want to promote the old way of web<br /> programming!The Buzz Sawnoreply@blogger.com