HTML to be 'Incrementally Evolved'

[NobleSavage]

I saw this on Slashdot a little while ago and though it was interesting. It seems the W3C is going to try and incrementally update HTML because the jump to XHTML isn't really working.

http://developers.slashdot.org/artic...6/10/28/131246

[fpanko]

It's good that they are doing something.

It just seems like most people don't realize the bennefits of xhtml, so they have no reason to switch.

[Murderous]

Education is key... they just aren't getting the "point" out there, or at least to the right people. I started to convert all my pages to XHTML a short while ago, but when you own several sites and blogs and scripts it becomes a tedious task, and the debugging is learned all over again. I guess I should wait before continuing since I don't feel like converting yet again.

[HarryM]

What's the difference between XHTML and html 4.01 if a page is going to be rendered in a standard web browser? Considering you used css and no old style tags etc...

[jayeff]

Originally Posted by HarryMuff

What's the difference between XHTML and html 4.01 if a page is going to be rendered in a standard web browser? Considering you used css and no old style tags etc...

I am also curious to know about the supposed benefits of XHTML...

[virgohippy]

I don't know what the higher-ups have to say, but here's what I like about xhtml:

1) It can reduce bandwidth. I've cut as much as 70% of bandwidth burning code from sites with especially large pages.
2) It's extremely quick and easy for me to modify and transfer a template from one site to another.
3) The code itself on any given page is easier to understand, considering there's usually a lot more content and a lot less design/layout controlling effects.
4) An xhmtl template driven dynamic site can load much faster (because there's less input/output to mess with) and it's far more intuitive to design.
5) It can make rss feed content a bit more creative.

[jayeff]

Originally Posted by virgohippy

I don't know what the higher-ups have to say, but here's what I like about xhtml:

1) It can reduce bandwidth. I've cut as much as 70% of bandwidth burning code from sites with especially large pages.
2) It's extremely quick and easy for me to modify and transfer a template from one site to another.
3) The code itself on any given page is easier to understand, considering there's usually a lot more content and a lot less design/layout controlling effects.
4) An xhmtl template driven dynamic site can load much faster (because there's less input/output to mess with) and it's far more intuitive to design.
5) It can make rss feed content a bit more creative.

...targets towards which we should all be working. But none of what you wrote is a consequence of XHTML or exclusive to it. In fact, insofar as many tag endings in XHTML require a space (for backward compatibility) plus an oblique, instead of just a simple ">", if you wanted to nitpick, you could argue that otherwise identical code would be even smaller in HTML.

XHTML was intended as a format which could combine both HTML and XML, but for that to happen, documents would need to be served up as application types, not as text. Explorer, which still has a very firm grip on the browser market, chokes if you do that. As a result, XML usage is confined to a few specialist niches and XHTML documents are almost always consigned to being treated exactly as if they had been coded in plain old HTML.

If it is of no benefit now, does XHTML have any value as future-proofing? The opposite seems likely, since the rumor-mill says that XHTML2 will not be backwards compatible while HTML5 will be. Nor, since Mr Gates has only just delivered IE7 does there seem much chance that the dynamic potential of X(HT)ML is going to be unleashed on the world any time soon.

There is no particular reason not to declare an XHTML doctype and in any case, it only takes a few seconds to switch back and forth. There just isn't - currently - any very good reason to do so.

Writing valid code, with structure separate from style is something we should do, because it makes our sites leaner and faster, friendlier towards more visitors and to the search engines. Easier to manage and troubleshoot too. But a "strict" declaration (in particular) enforces well-formed code far more than the choice between HTML and XHTML.

[virgohippy]

I guess I need to brush up on my definitions.

[NobleSavage]

I think the only advantage to XHTML it the future promise of a "semantic web" and other buzzwords.

I'm happy with html and untill there is a compelling reason to switch I've got better things to do with my time. I think 90% of webmasters feel the same way so I just don't see much progress being made on that front.

[jayeff]

Originally Posted by NobleSavage

I think the only advantage to XHTML it the future promise of a "semantic web" and other buzzwords.

I'm happy with html and untill there is a compelling reason to switch I've got better things to do with my time. I think 90% of webmasters feel the same way so I just don't see much progress being made on that front.

Hehe... now I can argue the other side

Although XHTML itself isn't responsible, the adaptation of XHTML (primarily because it is the common default for blog scripts) has forced more people to adopt better coding standards than would likely have happened otherwise.

All those "valid XHTML" links in the default templates which people couldn't resist clicking, had thousands discovering that their code was packed with errors. And as XHTML became a buzz, it started to be used by non-bloggers, many of whom found that their pages wouldn't display properly: off to the validator!

Exactly the same improvements could have been achieved with HTML, but I doubt they would have been. Be honest, how many people - HTML coders in particular - bother to validate their code? For most, providing the page looks okay, that is enough.