I don't believe in mythology and never believed in Santa even when I was a child. But let me read my daily horoscope before any further discussion :-)
For the time being, and if you are a Web content provider, you have three choices:
- HTML 4.01. The language was published almost 5 years ago and the W3C has consistently refused any addition to HTML since the 24th of april 1998. Only a few errata and clarifications were accepted into the 1999 XMas edition of HTML 4.01 (by the way, no, X in XMas does not mean eXtensible; you are infected by the XML-everywhere fever if you believe the contrary and you need to see a exorcist urgently).
- XHTML 1.x in all its avatars. Basically, it's an XML
reformulation of HTML 4 and you have the choice between the normal and
the xml-gurus-hate-presentational-content version of it. Sorry to say,
but unless you want to export to the web data stored in XML format
using proprietary DTDs or Schemas, there is no real incentive right now
for a move to XHTML. All the arguments you can read here and there
explaining why you should switch to XHTML, why XHTML is sooooo
better for you, all these arguments are just crap (When I think on
all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all).
- XHTML 2.0. Forget it for at least three reasons:
- Do you really think you will have XHTML 2.0 editors and browsers on your desk tomorrow ?
- Have you seen the differences between HTML/XHTML1 and XHTML 2 ?
- It's a nightmare; when I read XHTML 2.0, I can't help thinking that jwz, who is rarely the finest diplomat (and that's not negative from my pov, let's call a cat a cat), was right in his opinion about W3C.
Hey, pal, the ball's in your hands, make up your mind. Yeah, yeah, all these people shouting "NO, don't use a presentation attribute, that's bad" in your back. Or even "Can't you see the STYLE attribute is evil!!!". Annoying, isn't it ? You want the simplicity of an XMLized HTML 4, but you can't find in XHTML the features you need because you need to rely on some hypothetic styling engine ?
There is a fourth way. The fourth way should be called xHTML 5 because it should not be a super-strict-XMLization of HTML produced by a bunch of XML gurus on crack (no kidding, XML gurus must be on crack to make a monster like XML Schemas, but that's another "considered harmful" debate), but a real and fair followup to HTML 4. It's xHTML and not XHTML nor Xhtml because the important part is HTML, not the X.
Here is what I have specifically in mind.
- xHTML 5 is an XML language. xHTML 5 has a DTD, no Schema. XML Schemas are a better proof of existence of the devil than XSL-FO.
- only three presentation elements should be kept because of their super-wide usage. B, I and U. These three elements should be part of a sub-DTD available for integration thru system entity in all DTDs (if that's not clear, blame the time, it's 5am here and apparently I've just survived a layoff, though it's not fully sure yet).
- all elements should have a normative
default CSS style for visual media.
For instance:
em { font-style: italic; }
- presentational attributes are allowed, and to
give my real point of view encouraged, if and only if
they have a normative CSS definition for visual
media. For instance:
p[align] { text-align: attr(align); }
ortd[bgcolor] { background-color: attr(bgcolor); }
- let's put in xHTML 5 all the stuff the web authors need since 1998 and never got from the W3C: more META keywords, BGCOLOR on all elements, BGIMAGE on all elements, HEIGHT on TABLE, and so many other things. Drop me a mail if you have a suggestion. The contest is open.
Presentation hints are not bad. Closing the eyes in front of reality is bad, fanatism is bad. The Web just does not need strict separation between content and presentation. The Web needs Keep It Simple and Stupid. Because the customers of the Web are you, me, your child, your gran'ma, and the stupid sales guy next door. The stupid sale guy next door does not care about XML and strictness and he is right doing so. He wants a simple way of doing sexy documents, period. Other customers of the Web are Web authors. And Web authors want, need power and simplicity.
XHTML is simplicity without power. And I'm not sure about simplicity.
Confirming. And Netscape is badly impacted. In France, the 11th of december is Saint-Daniel. Hey Daniel, what a bad Saint-Daniel.
Pingbacks: 1
Get a decent browser (see this for my definition of decent browser) and try this demo of resizable images through side and corner handles
Pingbacks: 1
Scope is a multi-tabbed browser which displays web pages using either the IE or Mozilla engine - or both if you want to compare pages side by side. In addition to being extremely fast, Scope is very, very lightweight - only about 250k for the whole program!
Tantek, your blog is unreadable in Gecko based browsers. I have to apply #now { display: none; }
with a bookmarklet to read it... See what it looks like if I don't.
Before you flame me, read this:
- yes, someone else has probably done it before and done it better. So ?
- it's quick and dirty; I mean very quick and very dirty.
- it works in decent browsers only. If the support of DOM and CSS OM in your browser sucks to the point you can't render the simulation, you should seriously consider switching to Netscape or Mozilla.
After this little disclaimer, here is the thing.
Pingbacks: 1
I like the design of Shirley's blog. I like the contents too.