Jump to content

html tutorial inaccuracies


Recommended Posts

That wouldn't be doable in all environments, especially .NET or JAVA ones (I'm implying ASP.NET and ColdFusion here) that aren't based on C like libsgml.
Right, one advantage of XML over SGML is that more tools are available.On the other hand, it's possible to first input the data in SGML, translate it in XML with a command line tool that uses SGML, and then, internally use only the XML form. The SGML form would be archived, of course.
BTW, there isn't XHTML5. Not even plans for such. Not yet anyway.
The HTML5 specification defines, in a single document, the HTML5 DOM, which is an abstract view of the data tree, as well as two syntaxes, and an API, for this DOM. This is one of the good sides of the HTML5 specification.The two syntaxes are the HTML syntax (looking like SGML, but not an SGML application), and the XML syntax (a real XML application).HTML5 with the HTML syntax is called "HTML5".HTML5 with the XML syntax is called "XHTML5".There are a few differences, related to the limits of syntaxes, though:
The "DOM5 HTML", "HTML5", and "XHTML5" representations cannot all represent the same content. For example, namespaces cannot be represented using "HTML5", but they are supported in "DOM5 HTML" and "XHTML5". Similarly, documents that use the noscript feature can be represented using "HTML5", but cannot be represented with "XHTML5" and "DOM5 HTML". Comments that contain the string "-->" can be represented in "DOM5 HTML" but not in "HTML5" and "XHTML5". And so forth.
XHTML 2.0 will have very few elements, and will be more based on good semantic practice such as specifications of the role of elements with role attributes, so that, microformats will be used as much as possible, giving an extremely dynamically extensible language, giving a good presentation in every browser, and yet, allowing anybody to create extensions that will be displayed or handled even better in browsers recognizing the new element roles. The elements will still be recognized in browsers unaware of this role, and properly output, but the semantic benefit of the element role won't be used by these browsers.XHTML5 and HTML5 continue in the way of HTML 4.01, but dropping the SGML part not supported by current browsers, and adding new elements, some of them being really useful.The divergence of XHTML5 and XHTML 2.0, in my opinion, proves that the Web standardizing community has internal conflicts... This is a bad thing.Some people say that the W3C wants to drop HTML in favor of XHTML, though, the W3C didn't say that...But, the position of the WHATWG is relatively clear:
Generally speaking, authors are discouraged from trying to use XML on the Web, because XML has much stricter syntax rules than the "HTML5" variant described above, and is relatively newer and therefore less mature.
I predict flamewars of WHATWG-HTML/XHTML vs W3C-XHTML...For an unaware person, wanting to learn an hyper-text language, which one to choose? XHTML5 or XHTML 2.0?I predict conflicts that will be much worse than the gentle flamewars of XHTML 1.0 vs HTML 4.01.The war begun with the creation of the WHATWG, with some reactions of gurus:http://www.molly.com/2007/06/14/defy-the-p...t-stop-for-now/With hot reactions.Issues are raised... HTML5 drops the document type... How will browser recognize HTML6?HTML5 browsers are required to render HTML 4.01 code, interpreted as HTML5.The slogan "fixing the web" is a strength of the WHATWG advocates, as it's easy to argue that, without giving any argument as to how it fixes anything, and how there were things broken...Yourself, how would you choose XHTML 2.0 vs XHTML5?Myself, I'm not sure.Google and wikipedia will give you more information about the WHATWG...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me guess. The vendor's name started with an "M" and ended with a "icrosoft".
Good try.Strangely, your guess was wrong.The vendor distribute a browser whose name start with a 'O' and ends with a 'a', with a 'p', a 'e' and a 'r' between those two letters.And, this is my favorite browser.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...