XHTML2?

Does anyone know the timetable for XHTML2 and if its due out anytime
soon?

A

Re: XHTML2?

Scripsit UKuser:

> Does anyone know the timetable for XHTML2

There is none.

> and if its due out anytime soon?

Thank &Deity; it isn't. But something even worse, "HTML 5", might emerge in
a few years.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Re: XHTML2?

On 18 May, 11:08, "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote:
> Scripsit UKuser:
>
> > Does anyone know the timetable for XHTML2
>
> There is none.
>
> > and if its due out anytime soon?
>
> Thank &Deity; it isn't. But something even worse, "HTML 5", might emerge in
> a few years.
>
> --
> Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

On investigation - it appears there are 2 groups looking at HTML, the
W3C and the WHATWG, the latter pushing for focusing on HTML over
XHTML. However the W3C have setup an XHTML2 working group so focusing
on this and development of it is back on the table.

Re: XHTML2?

UKuser wrote:

> On investigation - it appears there are 2 groups looking at HTML, the
> W3C and the WHATWG, the latter pushing for focusing on HTML over
> XHTML. However the W3C have setup an XHTML2 working group so focusing
> on this and development of it is back on the table.

You're behind the times. Late last year, Sir Tim announced that the W3C
would re-open its HTML efforts, working in conjunction with WHATWG to
establish an HTML 5 standard.

XHTML 2 has different aims, and will be worked on in parallel by the W3C
XHTML working group.

The W3C HTML and XHTML groups are expected to swap some ideas though.
After all, if there's some piece of functionality that would be beneficial
to both languages, it makes sense that the syntax between them is as close
as possible.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux

Re: XHTML2?

On May 18, 12:33 pm, UKuser wrote:

> On investigation - it appears there are 2 groups looking at HTML, the
> W3C and the WHATWG, the latter pushing for focusing on HTML over
> XHTML. However the W3C have setup an XHTML2 working group so focusing
> on this and development of it is back on the table.

The XHTML 2 working group was set up ages ago and is still going.

WHATWG was set up by browser vendors to write a new specification
based on current text/html practises.

The W3C set up a new HTML working group last year, it has just pulled
in the work of the WHATWG as a starting point.

--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/

Re: XHTML2?

Jukka K. Korpela wrote :

> something even worse, "HTML 5", might emerge
> in a few years.

I agree with your sentiments. As it looks to me, the latest HTML 5
working draft from the WHAT WG is proposing something quite bad in my
opinion.

Gérard
--
Using Web Standards in your Web Pages (Updated Apr. 2007)
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_Web_Standards_in_ your_Web_Pages

Re: XHTML2?

On 2007-05-18, Gérard Talbot wrote:
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote :
>
>> something even worse, "HTML 5", might emerge
>> in a few years.
>
> I agree with your sentiments. As it looks to me, the latest HTML 5
> working draft from the WHAT WG is proposing something quite bad in my
> opinion.

What's wrong with it?

Re: XHTML2?

On May 18, 4:52 am, UKuser wrote:
> Does anyone know the timetable for XHTML2 and if its due out anytime
> soon?

The information about what is likely in xhtml2 indicates that it will
be greatly different in many ways from existing xhtml or html. So far
as I know, no current browser is ready for many of these changes. Thus
full usage of xhtml 2 will not be possible until browser makers make
great modifications in their browsers. Consider that no IE browser
supports xhtml at all if it is served properly as application/xhtml
+xml. True, one often can serve as text/html. However in this case you
might as well use html 4.02 strict, because the xhtml page gets parsed
as html and not xml. When served properly, an xhtml capable browser
parses the page as xml, and this is extremely strict. Only one tiny
error may mean you see an error message rather than the web page. If
history is any indication, even if xhtml 2 became official today, it
could be many years before most browsers support it fully - especially
IE.

Re: XHTML2?

Ben C wrote :
> On 2007-05-18, G�rard Talbot wrote:

> the latest HTML 5
>> working draft from the WHAT WG is proposing something quite bad in my
>> opinion.
>
> What's wrong with it?

HTML 5 proposes several tags which defeats the purpose of clear
separation of content with presentation/style and goes against what lots
of web standards advocacy groups have been relentlessly promoting during
over a decade. Restoring is really bad IMO. Same thing with ,
and new tags like ; even <sup>and <sub>: all of this should be
replaced with CSS. Also, , etc Some others are questionable to
retain from HTML 4: e.g.
Totally wrong, inadequate, incorrect, pure non-sense is the support for
pseudo-protocol "javascript:".

Maybe (in fact, I wish!) we should/would start a new, distinct, separate
thread on HTML 5.

Gérard
--
Using Web Standards in your Web Pages (Updated Apr. 2007)
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_Web_Standards_in_ your_Web_Pages</sub></sup>