html5 vs xhtml2.0

Post #234,321 by tuberculosis 11/15/05 4:58:12 PM 8/21/07 6:02:07 AM Reply	html5 vs xhtml2.0 Struggling with internet standards these days. Supposedly, xhtml is the future but now I see the WhatWG working on more pragmatic html5 features (like the canvas tag) and not worrying so much about the intellectual idealism that is rampant in xml land. More to the point, I see the browsers doing a better job on html 5 features than on xhtml features (like FireFox 1.5 and Safari 1.4 both supporting working canvas tags). Interested in thoughts and arguments for html (pragmatic) vs xhtml (idealistic) as direction for standardization for certain large web based company. The internal standard has been to shoot for xhtml, but we are far from making this. Furthermore, producing valid xhtml and putting a valid xhtml doctype on it results in radically different presentation in IE 6. So regardless, we rely on quirks mode and force it by leaving doctype tags off of our pages. So what is your take? "Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 06:02:07 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #234,329 by jake123 11/15/05 5:20:59 PM Reply	KISS Esp. considering the terrible interoperability of these standards on different web platforms. I would suggest going pragmatic for now, with possibly a separate idealised track to be able to exploit the xhtml stuff when it stabilizes in the web clients. Keeping some development going on the xhtml stuff is good, but the main thrust should be using what works now, not what might work down the road. I'd suggest doing something like an 80/20 split html/xhtml, with appropriate communication between the two. In short, get the xhtml people working on the more back end oriented stuff for the moment (the stuff that fits well in ideal land) and if/when it comes together (when MSFT realises they are only hurting themselves by wacking off on the incompatibilities as they don't have market power there) then you can move towards moving that stuff into actual production. NB- working on incomplete information, of course. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #234,332 by drewk 11/15/05 5:23:37 PM Reply	Idealistic answer Go for valid. Fuck Microsoft. Let their browser be the one that sucks and can't show your site properly. [ ahem ] That is all. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #234,334 by folkert 11/15/05 5:25:42 PM Reply	Pragmatic. Not that I much deal with web stuffs other than using it or setting up a server to serve it... But, the pragmatic approach nearly always wins. Doesn't really matter if the other one(s) are extremely technologicly superior. They people using and maintaining the standard, will go the way that works first then try to comform later. Bad habits are supported by the pragmatic approach, but really are they bad habits if they really are doing the work properly? Or is it deemed less than savory merely on the technical front? What about the whole AJAX thing going on, that doesn't sniff like xhtml proper. Close to many standards... but beholden to none, as many of the implemtations are, indeed, browser specific. Some want only to support Microsoft's IE, while other try to code to standards. Which standard was that again? Try the 2 forked method in testing and see which actually people would rather use or not... also maybe do some rotational DNS and cause these machine to be hit with real traffic and see how things work and if you get calls or problems relating to these... It is not that I say run production on one or the other, I know how you guys drive the bus, all I am saying, there are enough "browsers" out there that untill you get the real hammers cranking, it will be tough to judge. But, you can ignore all that and listen to the "pragmatic == good enough" angle and probably not be far from the mark. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* Freedom is not FREE. Yeah, but 10s of Trillions of US Dollars? SELECT * FROM scog WHERE ethics > 0; 0 rows returned.
Post #234,340 by Another Scott 11/15/05 5:41:18 PM Reply	Agree with the comments thus far. But I think you've answered your own question in your second paragraph: More to the point, I see the browsers doing a better job on html 5 features than on xhtml features (like FireFox 1.5 and Safari 1.4 both supporting working canvas tags). You live and die by what the browsers support. Keep an eye on the XHTML stuff, but if the browser support hasn't shaken out yet then don't break your neck trying to keep up with a moving target. Most of your customers aren't going to be on bleeding-edge browser anyway. Of course, unless things change greatly in the next year or so, WinVista may throw a monkey wrench in your plans so keep an eye on Redmond too. New machines are mostly going to be bundled with whatever comes out of Redmond, so you'll have to have some level of support there (even if it's just a page that redirects to [link\|http://download.mozilla.org\|http://download.mozilla.org] ;-). My $0.02. HTH a bit. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!