The case of AJAX is a good example of the above. HTML and any other static presentation format is doomed right from the start because there is no way to predict all possible needs for interactivity and presentation, and therefore custom solutions will inevitably become more popular than the standards and therefore create a bottleneck in development and adoption of those standards. On the other hand, XHTML/XML is far more future proof, so perhaps XHTML ís the right path. Maybe the best solution would be to continue with HTML, and take over the strictness from XHTML. It’s open to interpretation, both semantically and syntactically.įor example, how could a browser know with a 100% certainty where a certain paragraph ends, if the p tag is never closed? If we want a page to look the same in every browser, we need a well-defined and strict standard. For example, it forces proper nesting of elements, and it forces you to close all elements. It’s unwelcome, though, because XHTML is more strict. Only if you serve the data with the application/xhtml+xml mime-type, it will be read as XHTML.Īnother great advantage of HTML is that is is simpler and therefore more intuitive to use (No CDATA, no closing of tags that intuitively do not need to be closed). If you serve it as text/html it will be parsed as HTML. Many devs pretend to be serving XHTML, just by adding a proper doctype and use XML like syntax. Konqueror, Safari & co have only partial support, and Mozilla doesn’t support incremental rendering with XHTML. It’s logical because there’s hardly support any for XHTML. It seems like an unwelcome but logical continuation to me.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |