So xhtml2 is dead. Now what?

Should we continue to support the xhtml1 doctype? For what purposes should we use that over html4 strict or the newer html5? I barely caught onto the whole xhtml thing, so i'm not really at a loss. I just don't have any valid reasons to use the xhtml1 doctype really.

use xhtml until html5 become properly adopted.

just because 2 is dead doesn't affect anything already in use/production. they decide not to make a 3rd batman movie, should i not watch batman begins or dark knight for some arbitrary reason?

xhtml is still necessary if you work with any form of xml/xsl. even if you're using xhtml doctypes and serving them as text/html, the rendering is still better than html 4. html4 strict i hear is decent enough, but if you degrade back to html4 transitional you open the gates for a whole new ie6 POS.

If you want to use XML and HTML, then use XHTML. Because browsers generally have a more lightweight XML rendering engine, I suppose you could claim a tiny advantage in page rendering times too, but this assumes that you server the document as XML, not text/html.

Absolutely nothing wrong with using HTML4 though, providing you keep to best practices (properly nesting of elements, no self-containing attributes etc) to keep things smooth.

HTML5 looks very promising though; the only downside might be compatibility; how well will IE6 handle it?

there's nothing wrong with html4 - but it just feels like a step backwards.

90% of people who use xhtml are using it out of context (as text/html and not application/xhtml+xml) so it's not like it's any less wrong today than it was last month. most people who use xhtml2 out of context just the same.

Originally Posted by RaZoR^ If you want to use XML and HTML, then use XHTML. Because browsers generally have a more lightweight XML rendering engine, I suppose you could claim a tiny advantage in page rendering times too, but this assumes that you server the document as XML, not text/html. Absolutely nothing wrong with using HTML4 though, providing you keep to best practices (properly nesting of elements, no self-containing attributes etc) to keep things smooth. HTML5 looks very promising though; the only downside might be compatibility; how well will IE6 handle it?

IE6 is actually disappearing in the market share world . As of now it has under 10% market share. So by the time HTML5 actually becomes a standard I think we'll all be nagging about IE7's inability to function properly lol. I always properly nest tags and follow good practices with any code I write anyway, so all the code is usually the same. Would it be correct to use strong and em instead of b and i with html4 strict? I assume so, but feel that I should double check.

Originally Posted by noxxten ... So by the time HTML5 actually becomes a standard I think we'll all be nagging about IE7's inability to function properly lol. ...

And IE8's...

Originally Posted by noxxten Would it be correct to use strong and em instead of b and i with html4 strict? I assume so, but feel that I should double check.

You could always check the DTD to be absolutely sure. Both i/b and em/strong are allowed, it's your choice which to use.

Personally, if I can still do <p>blah</p> whatever the document type then that's fine by me. I'm also a big fan of XML well-formed-ness in HTML since I like to work with HTML as a data source and XML makes that more simple (less work translating the markup into a DOM representation, for example).

Originally Posted by noxxten IE6 is actually disappearing in the market share world . As of now it has under 10% market share. So by the time HTML5 actually becomes a standard I think we'll all be nagging about IE7's inability to function properly lol. I always properly nest tags and follow good practices with any code I write anyway, so all the code is usually the same. Would it be correct to use strong and em instead of b and i with html4 strict? I assume so, but feel that I should double check.

IE6 is dropping, but it nests in packs. with the project i'm currently working on, IE overall is 88%, and IE6 is like 60% of that 88. it's disgusting.

people update their technology when their needs demand it. no one liked cell phones when the first appeared. they were expensive, they caused tumors. they were unnecessary, you have a phone at home - i saw a 12 year old buy a blackberry curve on saturday.

as long as they can do what they need with Ie6, people won't upgrade, and they'll never not be able to do it with Ie6 until we stop downgrading to make things work in IE6. once HTML5 becomes more streamlined, d we can start taking real advantage of it in smaller scale applications, it should be enough to get the snowball rolling and filter up.

the short coming of xhtml in that regard - from my experiences - is that few people were really utilizing xml to its fullest extent, so the xhtml they were writing was really just beefed up html and didn't progress anything.

I think its going to be a while before html 5 is ready, or is ie8 the only one using it?

Originally Posted by JREAM I think its going to be a while before html 5 is ready, or is ie8 the only one using it?

It was my understanding that Firefox 3.5 utilizes some of it but haven't confirmed it. US "geeks" get all into this but its usually at least a year before you start seeing real world work affected by it.