Dear Web Gurus, et al.
It was over two years ago that I was telling people that HTML 5 would surpass XHTML 2 as the de facto up-and-coming standard for websites, and that I insisted on serving websites with classic HTML 4.01 Strict as opposed to any flavor of XHTML, for the sake of not wasting time with a spec that wasn't ready for the real world. Like, that comment where I said:
And as for preparing for an XML future, one of the points I was trying to make … is that most likely, the next technology on the web will be HTML 5, not another iteration of XHTML. When that comes around, what does it matter if you are prepared to write more XML? HTML 5 is intended for people who work on the web every day… take a look at XHTML 2 and compare it to HTML 5 and ask yourself which one you would rather use.
My statements, at the time, were mixed up in these two posts:
Serve your weblog as HTML 4.01
Validation is more than pretty fonts and unencoded ampersands
I'm quietly patting myself on the back for avoiding XHTML all these years, writing all my documents with HTML 4.01, and contributing to the HTML WG mailing list. It's not very often I get to do such a thing, but you know, I told you so! 
Note: this post is in reference to XHTML DOA WTF by Jeffrey Zeldman.
6 Comments
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.
You must have missed http://www.zeldman.com/2009/07/07/in-defense-of-web-developers/ then.
There is nothing wrong with XHTML 1 (except for the arguments regarding the way it is served to browsers), and it will continue as a W3C recommendation. HTML5 will include a XHTML variant as well, for those who continue to write XML.
I think all I'm saying is that no-one is wrong, XHTML is and will continue to be a valid way of building websites. The future lies in HTML5, but the future isn't here yet either (though I do get excited as different things appear).
Phil, you seem to have the misconception that I agree with Zeldman. He's a great guy and I respect all the work he has done, but I don't agree with his position on XHTML 1, and I never have. Ever since I stopped trying to use XHTML, I have always been very firm on my opinions about XML based markup for web documents; that it's not meant to be written by hand, and that it does not bring anything new to the table. People continue to insist that XHTML heralded a mass acceptance of strict conformance to markup rules, and single-handedly taught everyone how to write valid markup, but I don't buy that one bit. I think this was just a by-product of the prevalence and popularity of the W3C validator, which will encourage you to write valid markup whether you are using XHTML or HTML.
Like I said, XHTML does have its place, in cases that involve technologies like MathML or SVG, but the reality is that even 99.99% of web documents will never need such features, and it is much more often that XHTML is used in situations where it should not be used, like open-source software (Wordpress, for example).
So to respond to your point, yes, some people are wrong, and have been wrong for a long time, and will continue to be wrong, and they will vilify HTML 5, even though it they welcomed it with open arms when it arrived as a contender to XHTML 1 & 2, because they are not willing to admit that they led the community off in a messy direction all these years.
Well, and what's the problem with writing HTML 5 code, using the perfectly acceptable XHTML syntax, and then serving the pages as text/html?
I, for one, don't see anything wrong with that!
HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 are currently widely accepted standards, and there exists no argument against using one or the other.
When HTML 5 will be supported by most browsers, it'll be a viable option, too.
You will be able then to write HTML 5 in xhtml-syntax style, or html-syntax style. XHTML 5 will exist, too (but you'll have to serve it correctly as
application/xhtml+xml— hopefully, IE will be able to read it by this time).XHTML is not dead, and I don't think that we need to argue if HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0 or HTML 5 is the better standard… or which syntax style!
I hope you guys realize that what Jeremy Keith is suggesting is only going to make things worse. It's a good thing that HTML 5 intends to be extremely flexible and backwards-compatible, which is something that XHTML 2 never intended to do, and XHTML 1 never actually did, without some hacks that people came up with long ago, but there is nothing worse than having two different documents with the same DOCTYPE at the top, effectively indicating that they are written in the same language, and yet containing completely different markup styles conforming to different rules (or no rules at all). I shouldn't even have to explain why that's awful. HTML 5 has a long way to go before it becomes a reality, but if it brings in an era of one doctype, many different messy implementations, I'll be severely disappointed.
Again, I don't agree with a lot of the "experts" on all this. This "I'm OK, You're OK" any-kind-of-markup-you-like attitude towards HTML 5 goes very much against the clean, standard XML approach that these very same "experts" insisted was the core advantage of XHTML. Sounds like a lot of backpedaling to me.
I, for one, like the XHTML syntax.
a) you close all open tags,
b) you write lowercase tags,
c) all html attributes are in quotes.
What's wrong about that?
IMHO, this is better than a syntax style that will allow:
a) close some tags, not close some tags, or a bit of both,
b) write lowercase/UPPERCASE or mixedCASE,
c) put attributes in quotes or not (or put just some attributes in quotes and others — not).
This is a matter of personal preference, of course, but I like the xhtml style more.
Of course, nothing will prevent you from writing nicely formatted HTML 4.01 markup, too — you can close all open tags, write in lowercase and put attributes in quotes, but even if you don't, the validator service won't notice.
That's why I prefer XHTML, for now — I am not using its XML options, but I'm fine with that! I simply like its syntax more.
Christian, I think you get it wrong:
HTML 5 and XHTML 5 ARE the same language. The only difference is that the X flavor does not allow loose markup and insists on self-closing certain tags. I am sure that you too follow the same rules when coding, just without the self-closing slash.
I don't understand what's wrong with using XHTML without really using the extensibility of the language. And I can see the point in "make your site future-proof, use XHTML" - one can never be sure he won't decide to change a graphic with SVG object.